2017 (5) TMI 1425 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Revision petition u/s 264 - Assessment u/s 153A/153C - satisfaction note - assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 153C of the Act was illegal and therefore the entire proceedings were void ab initio - HELD THAT:- In the Ganpati cases, the satisfaction note clearly records the view that the documents listed therein belong to the other person. The satisfaction note is of the AO of the searched person who also happens to be the AO of the other person i.e. Ganpati. Merely because the note also does not categorically state that the documents mentioned therein do not belong to the searched person (Aseem Kumar Gupta Group) will not invalidate the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C qua Ganpati.

The view taken by the CIT in the impugned order does not call for interference. The remand to the AO for giving Ganpati a further opportunity regarding the nature of the documents and the validity of the additions made as a result thereof also calls for no interference. The writ petitions by Ganpati fail and are hereby dismissed.

Orders in the cases of Shushre and Shrey - The Court notes that in the impugned orders dismissing the revision petitions of Shushre and Shrey, the CIT has noted that despite several opportunities being granted to the ARs of the Assessees, they did not appear and "no submissions on merits of the case" were made by the two Assessees during present proceedings. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the CIT for declining to interfere on merits with the additions made by the AO.

Even otherwise, in these writ proceedings, it is difficult for the Court to examine the documents seized and determine if in fact they could be said to be incriminating qua each of the said Assessees. There could be instances where the very nature of the document for e.g., a balance sheet or P&L account of the Assessee, which already stood disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, can be said to be non-incriminating. That again will depend on the facts and circumstances.

However, the documents listed out in both the above satisfaction notes qua Shushre and Shrey are not such that can be said to be non-incriminating on a bare perusal. There was sufficient opportunity for both Assessees to demonstrate how they were not. But they did not avail of the opportunity. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court has to be satisfied that the CIT's impugned orders are not unfair, unjust or irrational and are consistent with the basic procedural requirements. On none of these counts do the impugned orders of the CIT in the present case warrant interference. Consequently, the petitions of Shushre and Shrey also are held to be without merit.

The impugned orders of the CIT are accordingly upheld and all the writ petitions are dismissed