“Explore the Supreme Court’s insights on Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing due process. Learn key takeaways, including scope, applicability, assessment timelines, and the burden of proof. Ensure proper handling of electronic data in tax authority procedures.”
The Supreme Court of India in the decision of Supermall, clarified the scope and interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the invocation of Section 153C by the Income Tax Department in relation to the search conducted on a group of entities. The decision provides important insights and clarifications on the provisions of Section 153C, which is an important tool for the tax authorities to scrutinize the undisclosed income of persons other than the searched person.
Here are 5 key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s decision in Supermall (2021) 130 taxmann.com 451 (SC) under Section 153C:
Scope of Section 153C: The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 153C is not an independent provision but is a part of the scheme of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Section 153C empowers the tax authorities to assess the undisclosed income of any other person on the basis of the documents seized during the search conducted on a person or entity. The court has held that Section 153C can only be invoked if there is a valid search and seizure operation under Section 132.
Applicability of Section 153C: The Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 153C can only be invoked if the seized material pertains to a person other than the searched person. The court has held that there must be some incriminating material found during the search operation, which leads to the belief that the undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the searched person.
Timelines for assessment: The Supreme Court has clarified that the assessment of income under Section 153C has to be completed within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the documents or assets are handed over to the assessing officer. This is an important clarification as it sets a clear timeline for the tax authorities to complete the assessment of income under Section 153C.
Opportunity of being heard: The Supreme Court has held that the person against whom an assessment is proposed to be made under Section 153C must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the assessment order. The court has emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed and the person must be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Burden of proof: The Supreme Court has clarified that the burden of proof lies on the tax authorities to establish that the undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the searched person. The court has held that the tax authorities must show some incriminating material found during the search operation, which leads to the belief that the undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the searched person. Once the tax authorities establish this, the burden shifts to the person against whom the assessment is proposed to be made to prove that the undisclosed income belongs to them.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Supermall provides important clarifications on the provisions of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision emphasizes the importance of following due process and the principles of natural justice while invoking Section 153C.
It also provides clear timelines for the completion of assessments and clarifies the burden of proof in cases where Section 153C is invoked. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for the tax authorities and taxpayers alike and will guide future cases involving the invocation of Section 153C.
The Supreme Court of India did not specifically address the issue of pen drives. The case primarily dealt with the interpretation and application of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
However, in general, the court’s decision in the Supermall case underscores the importance of adhering to due process and following the principles of natural justice in the conduct of search and seizure operations by the tax authorities. This includes the proper handling and preservation of seized material, including electronic devices such as pen drives.
The court has previously held that the tax authorities are required to follow certain procedures when conducting a search and seizure operation, including the maintenance of a proper inventory of seized material and the provision of copies of seized documents to the person from whom they are seized. These procedures are designed to safeguard the rights of the person whose property has been seized and ensure that the search operation is conducted fairly and transparently.
Therefore, it can be inferred that in case of pen drives or any other electronic device, the tax authorities must follow the proper procedures for handling and preserving electronic data to ensure that the search operation is conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and to prevent any loss or tampering of data during the course of the search operation.
Author Bio
