Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153C - whether on 8.5.2009, when proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s. 153C, there was material to show that the document found and seized in the course of search of Skyline group of cases belonged to the assessee? - Held that:- The condition precedent for issuing notice u/s. 153C is that the document seized in the course of search of Skyline group of cases should belong to the assessee. In the present case, what was found was a photocopy of the agreement for sale dated 18.4.2004. Purchaser has not signed this document. In the course of search nobody was examined nor post-search investigations was made regarding the absence of signature of the assessee in this document. The document in question is a photocopy of agreement for sale dated 18.4.2004, which is signed only by the Vendors and in which the assessee’s name as purchaser is found, but the assessee’s signature is not found in the said document. As we have already observed, there has been no post-search enquiries on the aforesaid document. In such circumstances, we fail to see as to how the AO formed an opinion that the document found in the course of search belongs to the assessee. The proceedings against the assessee commenced on issue of notice u/s. 153C on 8.5.2009. In the order u/s. 153C, there is a reference to the agreement for sale seized and the difference in value between registered document and agreement for sale. There is a reference to show cause notice dated 18.11.2004 issued to assessee and reply dated 19.11.09 filed by the assessee. The order of assessment was passed by the AO on 29.12.2009 and there is no reference to any other document or statement in the order of assessment. Even before us, no material was placed regarding the basis on which satisfaction note dated 8.5.2009 was recorded by the AO. In these circumstances, we are of the view that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act was not proper and therefore the proceedings for both the assessment years are required to be quashed. We also derive support for the above conclusion from the decision of Vijaybhai N Chandrani v. ACIT,(2010 (3) TMI 770 - Gujarat High Court ), wherein it was held that the fact of a reference to the name of person in the seized document cannot be the basis to come to the conclusion that the document belonged to the said person. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|