“documents seized”

The date of initiation of search or requisition for the purpose of abatement of assessment proceedings is the date of search or requisition, or the date of receipt of seized documents by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whichever is later. Proceedings under section 153C can only be initiated by the Assessing Officer of the searched person after being satisfied that seized documents belong to another person.

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

For initiating proceedings under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and specifically relate to the assessment years for which assessments are reopened. A document relevant only for one year cannot be used to reopen other assessment years without being incriminating for those years.

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act is invoked only when it is established that seized documents do not belong to the searched person, or if the searched person disclaims them; the satisfaction note must specifically indicate this fact.

A block assessment proceeding under section 158BD is illegal if the procedure laid down in section 153C is not followed. The provisions of section 153C are similar to section 158BD in block assessment proceedings.

For a valid reassessment under Section 153C, seized documents must be incriminating and directly relevant to the assessment years being reopened. Documents that are not incriminating or do not relate to the assessment years do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a diary seized from a third party if the diary is not found in the assessee's premises, not in the assessee's handwriting, and the revenue fails to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the diary.