TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d” in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the Act - The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person – thus, the very first step prior to the issuance of a notice u/s 153C has not been fulfilled – the condition precedent has not been met, the notices u/s 153C are liable to be quashed – Decided in favour of Assessee. - W.P.(C) 415/2014 & CM 823/2014, W.P.(C) 568/2014 & CM 1151/2014, W.P.(C) 570/2014 & CM 1154/2014, W.P.(C) 571/2014 & CM 1155/2014, W.P.(C) 575/2014 & CM 1159/2014, W.P.(C) 576/2014 & CM 1160/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2014 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Siddharth Mridul,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Chopra, Mr Harpreet Singh, Mr Amit Srivastava, Mr Piyush K. Singh and Mr Rishi Khanna. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan, Mr P.Roychaudhuri and Mr Akash Vajpai. JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral) 1. These six writ petitions pertain to the very same issue and therefore the same are being disposed of together. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 27.03.2012 related to the petitioner (Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd.). The learned counsel also handed over copies of the documents which have been tabulated in the satisfaction note for our consideration. He submitted that since these documents pertained to transactions with the petitioner, they can be construed as belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group in recording the satisfaction note and expressing his satisfaction that the said documents belonged to the petitioner. Consequently, he submitted that the issuance of the notices by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner (which incidentally is the same Officer as that of the Jaipuria Group) cannot be faulted and that the writ petitions ought to be dismissed. The learned counsel of the Revenue placed reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2013) 214 Taxman 558. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Enterprises: (2013) 358 ITR 465 and that of a Division Bench of this court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person: (2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year (a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been fulfilled. For this purpose it would be necessary to examine the provisions of presumptions as indicated above. Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person. It is similarly provided in Section 292C(1)(i). In other words, whenever a document is found from a person who is being searched the normal presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or satisfaction that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. Surmise and conjecture cannot take the place of satisfaction . 7. This would be the appropriate stage to consider the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The decision referred to in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra) is of no relevance insofar as the present case is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3C(1) that the Assessing Officer should also be satisfied that such valuable articles or books of account or documents belonging to the other person must be shown to show to conclusively reflect or disclose any undisclosed income. 9. It is only in this context that the Division Bench was of the view that the issuance of the 153C notice was only first step in the process of enquiry. 10. The only thing that remains to be examined now is the satisfaction note itself. The satisfaction note dated 02.08.2013 is in respect of the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12 and the same reads as under:- M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. AY 2006-07 to 11-12 02.08.2013 Satisfaction Note for issue of Notice u/s 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd, for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. Satisfaction Note A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out at the various premises of M/s Jaipuria Group on 27.03.2012. The group is also into various other business viz. Raymond Retail franchisee, real estate and construction, fast foods, mining, education, ayurvedic products, information technology and medical services. One of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account, or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. In view of facts narrated above, I am satisfied that the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notice u/s 153C dated 02.08.2013 is issued requiring the assessee to file return of income for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12. (Pukini Lokho) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi 11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
