TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Gurgaon dated 12.3.2015 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.489/Chd2015 ITA No.489/Chd/2015 (Assessee s Appeal) : 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income as on 28.7.2008 at total income of ₹ 19,53,440/-. Search and seizure operation was conducted on Dr.Naresh Mittal Group of cases on 17.11.2010. Consequent to the search operation, notice under section 153C was issued to the assessee dated 17.8.2012 calling for filing of return. In pursuance of notice under section 153C, the assessee again filed return declaring income at ₹ 19,53,440/- as on 30.9.2013. The assessee raised an objection against initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act before the Assessing Officer. After rejecting the said objection and discussing the case on merits, an assessment on an income of ₹ 91,94,940/- was completed making an addition of an amount of ₹ 72,41,500/-. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went in appeal before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed to be verified . It was stated that nowhere in the satisfaction note, nor in the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), any finding is coming out that the seized document belong to the assessee. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) had actually side stepped the issue by saying that the nature of the contents of the documents clearly shows that it was more than a mere reference of the assessee revealing element of income thereby suggesting undisclosed income of other person. Besides relying on the judgments which were relied on before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), heavy reliance was placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, WP(C) No.415, 568, 570, 571, 575, 576 of 2014 and Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In conclusion, it was stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case relying on the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in these cases, it is quite clear that no document belonging to the assessee was found during the search. No satisfaction about any document belonging to the assessee was recorded. No finding of any document belonging to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor which we observe from the reading of the satisfaction note is that the Assessing Officer opines that this transaction needs to be verified. We have also seen the copies of documents found during the course of search, which were made the basis for preparing such satisfaction note. In these documents basically certain financial transactions are recorded and the name of a number of other persons other than the assessee are appearing on these documents. The documents are seem to be computer printouts and apart from that very small notings in the handwriting of some person are there. In the background of these facts, now we will examine whether the notice is in consonance with the provisions of the Act or not. For this, first we will reproduce the provisions of section 153C of the Act as it stood for the relevant assessment year, which read as under : 153C Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Off icer is satisf ied that any, bullion, je wellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal presumptions which are suggested by the statute under Sections 132(4A)(i) and 292C(l)(i) of the said Act. 12. After referring to the satisfaction note as was recorded in that case, the Hon'ble High Court came to a conclusion at para 11, which reads as under : 11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word satisfaction or the words I am satisfied in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. We are afraid, that going through the contents of the satisfaction note, we are unable to discern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
