TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Section 153C (1) of the Act. The satisfaction note of the AO of the Assessee, being a carbon copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person also fails to fulfill the jurisdictional requirement. No reasons are recorded for the identical conclusion in either satisfaction note that the seized documents mentioned therein belong not to the searched person but to the Assessee. For all the aforementioned reasons, the two satisfaction notes dated 13th and 19th March, 2014 issued by the AOs of the searched person and the Assessee respectively, and all proceedings consequent thereto, are hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) 3241/2015, W.P.(C) 3242/2015, W.P.(C) 3243/2015, W.P.(C) 3245/2015, W.P.(C) 3246/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set out in a tabular form an analysis of some of the documents seized as under: Annexure No.1 Party No. Page Nos. Description of documents A-3/DB-8 1-48 These pages contain letter from M/s Canyon Financial Services Ltd. (AAACC3744J) written to Board of Directors, Dalmia Equities Pvt. Ltd. Regarding application for equity shares of ₹ 10/- each at a premium of ₹ 110/- per share. Certificate of Canyon Financial Services Ltd., confirming issue of equity shares of Dalmia Equities Pvt. Ltd. Copy of Form 32, copy of return of income of Canyon Financial Services Ltd. Director's report, certificate of incorporation, memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 2015, the Department is not relieved of the burden of showing that the seized documents in fact belong to (and not merely pertain to) the Assessee. 6. In the present case, after recording the satisfaction note as above on 13th March 2014, the AO of the searched person made over the aforementioned documents to the AO of the Assessee. On 19th March 2014, the AO of the Assessee recorded his satisfaction note. This AO reproduced the same tabular columns as well as description of documents as set out in the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. Thereafter, the AO of the Assessee recorded verbatim the satisfaction as recorded by the AO of the searched person word for word. 7. Following the above satisfaction notes, notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO of the Assessee in fact belong to the Assessee. Apart from the decision in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), Mr. Jetley also referred to the decision in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del). 11. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the presumption under Section 132(4A) read with Section 292C of the Act was for the benefit of the Department relieving it of the obligation of having to show that the documents seized from the possession of the searched person belonged to the searched person. According to Mr. Chaudhary, this presumption must be extended to relieve the Department of havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO of the other person has an obligation to also examine if indeed any of the documents handed over to him by the AO of the searched person in fact belong to the Assessee and further if they constitute incriminating material justifying the reopening of the assessments of the Assessee. This is then the second filter. However, as already mentioned, in each case the extent of satisfaction of the above requirement will depend upon on the nature of the documents. 14. Turning to the case at hand, the first document referred to in the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person is an application made by the Assessee for subscription to the shares of DEPL. Being an application for subscription of equity shares, it is a document filled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position may have been different. Based on the presumption under Section 132 (4A) read with Section 292 C of the Act it may have been possible to proceed against the Assessee under Section 153 A of the Act subject of course to the document constituting incriminating material. However, in the present case that is not the position. The jurisdictional requirement under Section 153C (1) of the Act of the Department having to show that the application made by the Assessee for the equity shares of DEPL belongs to the Assessee is not satisfied. 17. The second document is the certificate issued by the Assessee confirming the issuance in its favour of the equity shares of DEPL. The said document is titled To whomsoever it may concern . It is, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
