Case Law Details
There is no satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating proceedings under section 153C. Inspite of giving sufficiently adequate time to the Revenue for production of the necessary records and considering the fact that AO refused to allow inspection to assessee as recorded by the bench on 20.04.2011, we have no option than to take an adverse view that no satisfaction was recorded by AO before issuance of notice under section 1 53C.
The Revenue has not been able to show any satisfaction recorded either in the case of searched person or in the case of assessee and consequently in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT (Supra), a notice issued under section 153C r.w.s. 153A is liable to be held as invalid. Thus, the consequential assessments passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144C are annulled on account of the invalidity of the notices under section 153C. Assessee’s additional grounds are accordingly allowed in all the impugned assessment years. Since assessee’s additional ground is allowed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, there is no need for adjudicating the issues on merit in any of the assessment years. Accordingly, the other grounds raised are considered academic and hence, not adjudicated.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
ITA Nos.8133, 8137,8138,8136, 8135 & 8132/Mum/2010
(Assessment years: 2002-03 to 2007-08)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs ACIT in W.P. (C)415,568,570,571,575 & 576/2014 & CM 823,1151,1154,1155,1159 &1160/2014 vide order dated 7th August 2014 has held as under:
Mere use or mention of the word “satisfaction” or the words “I am satisfied” in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. We are afraid, that going through the contents of the satisfaction note, we are unable to discern any “satisfaction” of the kind required under Section 153C of the said Act.(Para 11 of the order)
There a very recent judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by hon’ble Allahabad High Court in ITA No. 60 of 2014 in the case of CIT Vs. Gopi Apartments explaining the issue of requirement of satisfaction to be recorded and by whom to be recorded, it has also been clarified that even if the assessing officer of both the person are common then too recording of satisfaction is mandatory.