2025 (6) TMI 1746 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of notice issued u/s 153C - jurisdiction over the other person (assessee) whose documents were found during search - undisclosed business income - satisfaction in the case of other person (assessee) was recorded on 03.09.2018 whereas according to the remand report submitted by the AO in the first appellate proceedings satisfaction in the case of the searched person was recorded on 06.09.2018 HELD THAT - A perusal of the satisfaction recorded on 06.09.2018 inspires confidence in our mind to believe that it is consequence of the satisfaction recorded on 03.09.2018 but it does not assume the status of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person because nowhere it is recorded that the documents do not belong to the searched person and on the other hand it says that the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person was already received and placed on record. This clearly shows that the satisfaction of the searched person is something foreign to this satisfaction recorded on 06.09.2018 it forms part of record but had never seen the light of the day. On this factual finding we conclude that there is no legal and valid satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched persons without which the satisfaction recorded on 03.09.2018 has no jurisdictional foundation and therefore the entire edifies of the Revenue gets collapsed. We therefore accept the contention of the assessee and hold that for want of jurisdiction invested in the Assessing Officer in his capacity as Assessing Officer of the other person (assessee) the satisfaction dated 03.09.2018 is non-est in the eye of law and the consequent assumption is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the assessment orders passed by the AO u/s 153C for the A.Y.2016-17 and 2017- 18 are quashed. We hold and order so. Undisclosed business income - gross receipts as unaccounted sale only on the basis of additions made towards on-money received over and above the SRO value of the flats for the A.Y.2016-17 and 2017-18 - HELD THAT - There is no clarity as to whether the entire gross receipts is on-money or consideration received for sale of property including sale consideration as per the registered sale deed. Since there is ambiguity in the findings of the AO and also the fact that there is evidence for incurring unaccounted expenditure against unaccounted receipt of on-money for sale of flats in our considered view a reasonable rate of profit needs to be estimated on purported on-money received by the assessee for sale of flats. This principle is supported by the decision of Panna Corporation 2014 (11) TMI 797 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and Yugaandhar Housing Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (9) TMI 51 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM where a similar view has been taken by the Tribunal and directed the AO to estimate profit on on-money received for sale of flats. Further as pointed out by the Ld.DR the assessee is co-developer of the lands and as per terms and conditions of MOU the entire development expenditure has been incurred by the developer. If at all any expenditure for the assessee then the assessee may incur regular overhead expenditure applicable to any kind of business. Therefore we deem it appropriate to estimate 25% profit on total unaccounted receipt towards sale of flats. Thus we direct the AO to estimate 25% profit on total gross receipts and delete the balance addition.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person validly recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a jurisdictional prerequisite before issuing notice and assuming jurisdiction over the other person (assessee) whose documents were found during search.
• Whether the satisfaction note dated 06.09.2018 recorded by the AO of the searched person met the mandatory statutory requirements under section 153C, especially when an earlier satisfaction note dated 03.09.2018 was recorded by the AO of the other person.
• Whether the AO had jurisdiction to proceed under section 153C in the absence of a valid satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person.
• The correctness of the additions made by the AO towards on-money received for sale of flats, particularly whether the entire on-money should be taxed as income or only the profit element embedded therein.
• Whether the AO ought to have considered the return filed by the assessee claiming the land as agricultural and hence not a capital asset liable for tax.
• For the assessment year 2018-19, whether the AO was justified in treating the entire gross receipts from sale of land as unaccounted income without allowing deductions for cost or estimating reasonable profit on on-money received.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Validity of Satisfaction Note under Section 153C

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C mandates that before the AO of the other person can issue notice and proceed with assessment based on material seized from the searched person, the AO of the searched person must record satisfaction that the seized material does not belong to the searched person but relates to the other person. The Supreme Court in Super Malls (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax clarified that if the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, a single satisfaction note suffices. However, where different AOs are involved, the AO of the searched person must first record satisfaction before the AO of the other person can assume jurisdiction.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined two satisfaction notes: one dated 03.09.2018 recorded by the AO of the other person (assessee), and another dated 06.09.2018 purportedly recorded by the AO of the searched person. The 06.09.2018 satisfaction note did not explicitly state that the seized documents did not belong to the searched person, which is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. It merely referred to the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person being placed on record but did not produce or disclose such satisfaction. The Tribunal held that this was insufficient to meet the statutory mandate under section 153C.

Key Evidence and Findings: The satisfaction note of 03.09.2018 was clearly by the AO of the other person, and no valid satisfaction by the AO of the searched person was on record. The 06.09.2018 note failed to record reasons or satisfaction that the documents did not belong to the searched person. The absence of such satisfaction meant the AO of the other person had no jurisdiction to proceed.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the AO of the searched person did not validly record satisfaction, the AO of the other person could not validly assume jurisdiction under section 153C. The Tribunal emphasized the jurisdictional nature of this requirement and that failure to comply renders the assessment null and void.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the 06.09.2018 satisfaction note sufficed and that the 03.09.2018 note by the AO of the other person was valid. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the satisfaction by the AO of the searched person is indispensable and cannot be implied or assumed from the other satisfaction note.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessments for A.Y.2016-17 and 2017-18 made under section 153C were without jurisdiction and quashed the assessment orders.

Issue 3 & 4: Treatment of On-Money Received for Sale of Flats

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle established in judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court decision in DCIT Vs. Panna Corporation, is that only the profit element embedded in on-money received should be taxed, not the entire amount. The AO must estimate reasonable profit after allowing for expenses.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: For A.Y.2016-17 and 2017-18, the AO made additions of Rs. 9.59 crores and Rs. 1.62 crores respectively towards on-money. The assessee contended that part of the on-money was utilized towards unrecorded expenditure and only profit should be taxed. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, reasoning that the MOU showed the developer incurred all development costs and the assessee received fully developed flats, negating further expense claims. The assessee's conversion of inherited land into stock-in-trade was treated as a one-time business transaction, not a continuous business incurring overheads.

Key Evidence and Findings: The MOU and statement recorded during search indicated the developer bore development expenses. The assessee's claim of unrecorded expenditure was not accepted by CIT(A).

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal agreed with CIT(A) for A.Y.2016-17 and 2017-18, upholding the additions as the entire on-money was rightly treated as income given the facts.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's claim for estimation of profit was rejected on the basis of documentary evidence and business nature. The Revenue supported the full addition.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the additions for these years but quashed the assessments on jurisdictional grounds as noted above.

Issue 5: Claim of Agricultural Land and Capital Asset Status

The assessee claimed that the land was agricultural and beyond municipal limits, hence not a capital asset liable to tax. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument as the land was converted into stock-in-trade and the transaction was treated as business income. This issue was subsumed in the broader treatment of income and was not separately upheld.

Issue 6: Assessment Year 2018-19 - Treatment of Gross Receipts from Sale of Land

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle that only profit should be taxed on on-money receipts, allowing for expenditure incurred, was reiterated with reference to the Gujarat High Court and ITAT Visakhapatnam decisions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO treated the entire gross receipt of Rs. 43.82 lakhs as unaccounted income without clarity on whether it was on-money or entire sale consideration. The Tribunal noted the AO failed to give reasons and did not allow deductions for cost of acquisition or development expenses. The assessee had reported average net profit of 18% in earlier years, and the statement recorded during search admitted expenditure incurred from on-money receipts.

Key Evidence and Findings: The statement of the assessee and nature of business suggested unaccounted expenditure against on-money receipts. Treating the entire amount as income would imply an unrealistic profit margin exceeding 60%, which is improbable.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate reasonable profit on the unaccounted receipts rather than taxing the entire amount. It fixed a profit rate of 25% on the gross receipts of Rs. 43.82 lakhs, allowing the balance to be treated as expenditure.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued against estimation of profit, relying on earlier admissions and MOU terms. The Tribunal found the arguments unconvincing given the ambiguity and evidence of expenditure.

Conclusion: The appeal for A.Y.2018-19 was partly allowed with direction to estimate 25% profit on total gross receipts.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Nowhere, in the satisfaction recorded on 06.09.2018, the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons as to how he reached a conclusion that the document / loose sheets recovered in the search do not belong to the searched person. Unless this satisfaction is reached by the Assessing Officer, neither the question of transmitting the documents to the Assessing Officer of the other person nor the Assessing Officer of the other person recording a satisfaction that such documents are attributable to the other person to proceed u/s 153C of the Act."

"In case the Assessing Officer of the searched person is different from the Assessing Officer of the other person, then satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of the searched person that the recovered documents do not belong to the searched person is the fundamental jurisdictional requirement to proceed further for either transmission of material or the Assessing Officer of the other person to consider that the material for the purpose of issuing notices u/s 153C of the Act."

"We accept the contention of the assessee and hold that for want of jurisdiction invested in the Assessing Officer in his capacity as Assessing Officer of the other person, the satisfaction dated 03.09.2018 is non-est in the eye of law and the consequent assumption is liable to be quashed."

"Once the amount pertains to sale of land, then, relevant cost, including cost of acquisition and other development expenses needs to be allowed as deduction."

"Considering the totality of the facts of the case and also by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we deem it appropriate to estimate 25% profit on total unaccounted receipt towards sale of flats."

Final determinations:

• The assessments for A.Y.2016-17 and 2017-18 made under section 153C were quashed for lack of valid satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
• The additions made towards on-money for these years were upheld on merits but became infructuous due to jurisdictional failure.
• For A.Y.2018-19, the appeal was partly allowed by directing the AO to estimate 25% profit on the gross receipts from sale of land, allowing the rest as expenditure.