9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1719 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - information found during a search of other persons - accommodation entries receipt through generation of bogus invoices - HELD THAT - The information provided in the satisfaction note entered by the AO of the assessee could not possibly lead to the conclusion that the income of the Assessee for AY 2019-20 had escaped assessment. The pen drive found cannot be considered as containing any incriminating material pertaining to the petitioner in respect of AY 2019-20. Thus the petitioner s assessment for the said year could not be reopened u/s153C of the Act. The aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of Sinhgad Technical Education Society 2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT as well as the recent decision of this Court in Saksham Commodities Ltd. 2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice issued u/s 153C of the Act in respect of AY 2019-20 is set aside. Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Justification for issuing notice under Section 153C for AY 2019-20 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153C of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to reassess the income of a person other than the searched person if, during a search on the searched person, undisclosed income or documents relating to another person are found. However, the power to reopen is contingent upon the AO's satisfaction that the material found is likely to have a bearing on the income of the other person for the relevant assessment year(s). The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the recent Delhi High Court decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 (1), Delhi & Anr. were relied upon. Paragraph 68 of the Saksham Commodities judgment was particularly emphasized, which states: "68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence. Absent any material that may either cast a doubt on the estimation of total income for a particular year or years, the AO would not be justified in invoking its powers conferred by Section 153C. It would only be consequent to such satisfaction being reached that a notice would be liable to be issued and thus resulting in the abatement of pending proceedings and reopening of concluded assessments." Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the satisfaction note recorded by the AO during the search of the searched persons. The note referred to a pen-drive containing data about transactions of High Ground Enterprises Ltd. (HGEL) with companies that allegedly provided accommodation entries through bogus invoices spanning FY 2014-15 to FY 2020-21. For the petitioner, the only transaction mentioned related to FY 2014-15, amounting to Rs. 70,78,680/-, supported by a purported bogus invoice. The Court reasoned that since the information related exclusively to FY 2014-15, it could not be said to have any bearing on the petitioner's income for AY 2019-20. Consequently, the AO's satisfaction to issue a notice under Section 153C for AY 2019-20 was not legally sustainable. Key evidence and findings: The satisfaction note itself did not contain any material indicating that the petitioner's income for AY 2019-20 had escaped assessment. The transaction identified was from a different financial year (2014-15), and there was no direct or indirect connection to AY 2019-20. Application of law to facts: Applying the legal principle that the AO must be satisfied that the material found relates to the AY for which reassessment is sought, the Court found that the AO's action was not justified. The reopening under Section 153C must be confined to the years to which the material relates or is likely to influence, and here, the material related to a prior year. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid as the information did not pertain to AY 2019-20. The respondents relied on the satisfaction note and the general power under Section 153C. The Court rejected the respondents' contention, emphasizing the requirement of specific satisfaction linked to the relevant AY. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the AO's satisfaction was not based on any material relevant to AY 2019-20, and hence, the issuance of the notice under Section 153C for that year was without jurisdiction. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held: "The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may relate or is likely to influence. Absent any material that may either cast a doubt on the estimation of total income for a particular year or years, the AO would not be justified in invoking its powers conferred by Section 153C." Core principles established include:
Final determination: The impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2019-20 was set aside as the AO's satisfaction was not supported by any material relevant to that year, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
|
