| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3521 (Hyd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 153C
Since Department failed to dispute that AO had nowhere made it clear as to whether the alleged incriminating material found/seized during the course of search belonged to the assessee or not and section 153C proceedings failed to record the due satisfaction as prescribed in the Act before proceeding against the assessee, therefore, assessment under section 153C was quashed.
|
Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153C - No incriminating material found during search -
Assessee sought to reverse the action of lower authorities initiating section 153C proceedings followed by unexplained investment addition made in the course of assessment. Assessee also sought to raise an additional ground that AO had not recorded reasons before issuing section 153C notice. Revenue strongly objected to the above stated petition at this belated stage on the ground that the same tends to give altogether a new texture to already raised issues. Held: Assessment suffered from a patent legal defect at the threshold itself since AO ought to have initiated the same under section 153A in case of the searched assessee than a third party. Department failed to dispute that AO had nowhere made it clear as to whether the alleged incriminating material found/seized during the course of search belonged to the assessee or not. Section 153C proceedings failed to record the due satisfaction as prescribed in the Act before proceeding against the assessee. Thus, assessment was quashed.
Relied:Commissioner of Customs (Import), v. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Company & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(EX) 737 (SC) National Thermal Power Company Limited v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC); M/s All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (Mumbai) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2464 (Mum-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2006-07
IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|