DCIT vs Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

“3 . It t ranspires at the outset that both thes e assessee’s rais e their first and foremost identical subst antive ground challengi ng validity of the imp ugned section 153C assessment s itself. There is not disput e betwe en the parties that the l earned departmental authorities had carried o ut the s earch i n questi on i n M/s Elan Gr oup on 29 .05.2018. Le arned CIT-DR v ehement ly submits that it was the said search which l ed to s eiz ure of the c orr esponding i nc riminati ng material followed by section 153C satisfaction rec orded i n these twin assessee’s cases on 19.01.2021. T hat bei ng t he case, ther e would be hardly any quarr el in light of PC IT vs. Jasjit Singh (2024) 336 CTR 634 (Del hi ) and PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pv t. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.) t hat the dat e of initiation of the s earc h i n ques tion i n an inst anc e of i nvocation of s ection 153C(1) 1^{s t} proviso co uld be that of recordi ng of the satisfaction itself whi c h co mes to be on 19.01.2021 o nly.

4.

A per usal of the cas e records next indicates that the learned As sessi ng Offic er had recorded his satisfacti on on 19.01.2021 followed by issuance of his notice dated 27.01.2021 to the as sessee(s ) as fol lows:

“I ha v e go ne t hr o ugh t he ab o v e m e nt i o ned d oc u m e nt s a n d I am sa t isf ie d t ha t a bo v e m ent i o ned d oc um ents s e iz ed f ro m t h e p r em is e s o f M /a E la n In d ia P vt . L t d ., M /s Be st Se lli ng Re al t y P vt . L td . , M /s K & T Re al t y Se rv ic es P vt . L t d , G olf vi e w C or p o rat e T ow e r , 2 ^{n d} /3 ^{r d} F l o or , Go lf Cou rs e R o ad , Se c t o r-1 2 , G u r u gr a m, H a r ya na -12 200 1 p ar t y AP - 6 & Ap - 6 A du r in g t h e c o urs e o f se a rc h b e lo n g t o /c o nt a in i nf o rm a t io n w h ic h r e lat es M /s E l an Lt d . (P AN : AA D C E3 3 41 G ) a n d h av e a be ar in g o n t h e d et er mi n at io n o f its t ota l inc om e . H e nc e , no t ic e u /s 15 3 C o f th e In c om e T a x Ac t , 1 9 61 is b ein g is s ue d fo r A .Y s . 2 0 1 3-1 4 t o 20 1 8 -1 9 a n d no t ic e u /s 1 4 3 ( 2 ) f or A . Y . 2 0 1 9 -2 0 .”

5.

Fa ced wit h this situati on, Mr. Si dhu vehementl y argues that the l earned assessi ng authority had ri ght ly proc eede d agai nst t he assesse e(s) afte r recordi ng his satisfacti on that t he s eized mate rial in questio n “bel ong to/c ontain i nformation whic h r elates to M/s El an Ltd.” His endeavour the refore is to support the abo ve secti on 153C satisfacti on as strictly i n tune wi th the provisions of the Act.

6.

We have give n our thoughtful consi deration t o t he assessee’s and the Reve nue’s foregoi ng vehement co ntentions regardi ng validi ty of the impugned satisfacti on. We find no merit to expr ess our co ncurr ence wit h the Revenue’s stand herei n. We make it cl ear first of all that the l earned A ssessi ng Offic er had admi ttedly inv olved both the foregoi ng st atut ory expr essions “belo ngs to” as well as “rel ates to” her ei n which could not be held as a pr oper satisfacti on in accordance with law. T his is for the precis e reason that the l egislature has i tself incorpor at ed the for egoi ng former expression of “bel ongs to” as i nvolvi ng “any money , bullio n, jewel le ry. .......... ” etc. i n sub-cl ause (a) and the lat ter c ategory of “pertai ns to” or “relates to”; for any books of acc ount or documents etc.; res pectivel y. Learned CIT-D R couldn’t r ebut t he clinc hi ng fact t hat the assessi ng authority’s for egoi ng satisfacti on has used both the above statutor y expr essions as intercha ngeabl e whic h is not in accordance wi th stricter i nterpr etati on i n li ght o f Commissi oner Vs. Dil ip Kumar (2018) 9 SSC 1 (S C). This is indeed coupl ed wit h the fact t hat the tribunal ’s learned “Third Member ” i n Prashant Pr emchand Bafana Vs. Addl. CIT [IT-462-ITAT -2025 (Pine)] has already settled the issue in the as sessee’s favour tha t the abo ve thre e st atutory expr essions have to be used i n t he specified circumstances thus tre ati ng t hem as interchange able one . We are acc ordi ngl y of t he co nsidered vi ew that give n the fact that the inst ant issue stand s ettled upt o hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of t he Act , the impugned satisfaction herei n has not been validly recorded which render s the co rrespondi ng assessment(s ) herei n as not sustainable in law. The same stand quashed i n very ter ms therefor e.

7.

Same order to f ollow in the latter assess ee M/s Elan Bui ldcon Pvt . Ltd. thre e appeals ITA No. 769, 771 & 773/Del /2025 since i nvolvi ng identical set of facts .”