“seized material”
The decision most relied on for seized material is CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears (362 ITR 673), cited in 528 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on seized material
The recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite for assessments under Section 153C, and the six-year limitation period for such assessments is reckoned from the date this satisfaction is recorded.
Strict adherence to approval protocols under Section 153D, including those in the Departmental Manual of Office Procedure, is essential for search assessments. An assessment is invalid if the approving authority fails to apply its mind or consider all relevant seized material before granting approval.
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.
Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.
Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.
For assessments under Section 153C concerning a non-searched person, the relevant date for calculating the block of assessment years is the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that person assumes possession of the seized material, not the date of the original search. This date determines the look-back period for reopening assessments under Section 153A read with 153C.
Recording satisfaction under Section 153C for initiating proceedings against a third person is not a mechanical exercise; it requires a finding that seized material has a direct bearing on the third person's income, and improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment. Abatement under the second proviso to Section 153A is an inevitable consequence of a search, irrespective of the Assessing Officer's opinion on the material's impact.
An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is considered mechanical and invalid if granted without application of mind and without perusing relevant assessment records, including seized material. This principle has been affirmed by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.
