2025 (6) TMI 633 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 v/s 153C - incriminating material as found during the search of a third party - HELD THAT - After considering the ratio laid down in the case of Girish Chandra Sharma 2018 (11) TMI 1736 - ITAT DELHI and so many Coordinate Benches of ITAT have taken the similar view that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is applicable to frame the assessment if any incriminating material may found and seized in the premises of a third person then AO ought have to initiate the proceeding u/s 153C but AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of information received on the seized material found. Thus notice u/s 148 and the assessment which was framed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act are not valid in the eyes of law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was valid and within jurisdiction, given that the incriminating material relied upon was found during the search of a third party and not the assessee;

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer was correct in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 instead of invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act, which specifically deals with assessments based on material seized from third parties;

(c) Whether the addition of Rs. 3,34,000/- under section 69A of the Act to the assessee's income was justified on the basis of the material on record or was it arbitrary and based on mere surmises and conjectures;

(d) Whether the appellate authorities below erred in upholding the reassessment and addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Validity of Reopening under Section 147/148 vis-`a-vis Applicability of Section 153C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act provides different procedural safeguards and provisions for reassessment depending on the source of information. Section 147/148 empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment if income has escaped assessment. Section 153C specifically applies where incriminating material is found during a search or seizure in the premises of a third person, allowing the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the person to whom the material relates.

Judicial precedents, including decisions of various High Courts and coordinate benches of the Tribunal, have consistently held that when incriminating material is found in the possession of a third party, the Assessing Officer must invoke section 153C for reassessment proceedings and cannot proceed under section 147/148. This principle was notably reiterated in the decision relied upon by the assessee from the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Girish Chandra Sharma, where the reassessment under section 147 was quashed on similar facts.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal carefully examined the facts and noted that the Assessing Officer's own reasons recorded for reopening stated that the information about the cash payment of Rs. 3,34,000/- was received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-7(3), New Delhi, and the incriminating material was found in the premises of M/s. Grihapravesh Buildtech Pvt. Limited, a third party (the builder). The Tribunal emphasized that since the material was seized from a third party's premises, the correct legal procedure mandated initiation of proceedings under section 153C.

The Tribunal referred to the binding precedents and held that the Assessing Officer's initiation of reassessment under section 147/148 was without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio. The Tribunal underscored that section 153C excludes the applicability of section 147 in such circumstances and that the Assessing Officer's failure to follow the correct procedure vitiated the reassessment.

Application of law to facts: The facts clearly established that the incriminating material was not found in the possession of the assessee but in the third party's premises. The Assessing Officer did not initiate proceedings under section 153C but proceeded under section 147/148. This procedural irregularity rendered the reopening invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's counsel argued that the reopening was based on unverified and vague information and that the correct procedure was not followed. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) without adequately addressing the jurisdictional issue. The Tribunal gave precedence to the legal principle and binding precedents over the Department's procedural approach.

Conclusion: The reopening of assessment under section 147/148 was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio since the incriminating material was found in the premises of a third party, necessitating proceedings under section 153C.

Issue (c): Justification of Addition under Section 69A

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A deals with unexplained investments and allows the Assessing Officer to add such unexplained cash payments or investments to the income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not delve extensively into the merits of the addition under section 69A because the reassessment itself was held to be invalid. However, the assessee contended that the addition was arbitrary and based on surmises without proper material.

Application of law to facts: Since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the addition made under section 69A could not stand. The Tribunal implicitly indicated that the addition was not sustainable as it was founded on an invalid reassessment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Departmental Representative supported the addition, but the Tribunal prioritized the jurisdictional defect over the substantive issue.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was held to be unsustainable due to the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings.

Issue (d): Validity of Orders Passed by Lower Authorities

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment under section 147/148. The appellate authority failed to appreciate the mandatory applicability of section 153C in cases involving incriminating material found in third party premises. The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities were illegal and devoid of jurisdiction.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The provisions of section 153C of the Act is applicable to frame the assessment, if any incriminating material may found and seized in the premises of a third person, then the ld. Assessing Officer ought have to initiate the proceeding under section 153C of the Act, but ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received on the seized material found. Therefore, I am of the view that notice under section 148 of the Act and the assessment, which was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, are not valid in the eyes of law."

"Hence, the reassessment in question is accordingly quashed."

The Tribunal established the core principle that where incriminating material is found in the premises of a third person, the Assessing Officer must invoke section 153C for reassessment and cannot proceed under section 147/148. Failure to do so renders the reassessment void ab initio.

Final determinations:

(i) The reopening of assessment under section 147/148 was without jurisdiction and void ab initio;

(ii) The addition under section 69A based on such reopening could not be sustained;

(iii) The orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) confirming the reassessment and addition were quashed;

(iv) The appeal of the assessee was allowed accordingly.