Home Concepts vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Recording of satisfaction u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961

A search & seizure operation action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the M/s Abhinav Steels & Power Ltd. Group of cases and its related entities on 14.03.2018. The premises of M/s Griha Pravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Abhay Kumar i.e. A-410, Ansal Chamber 1, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi was also covered in search action. During the course of search proceedings large volumes of incriminating documents, including physical documents and digital data were seized/impounded from the searched premises. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was ascertained that certain documents/books of accounts/digital data found at Achal Kumar CA's office is related to person other than searched person. Details of aforesaid seized material are mentioned below. Hence, the AO of the searched person has recorded his satisfaction and handed over the seized documents to the undersigned.

2.

Thereafter, the case of M/s Home Concepts Pvt. Ltd. has been centralized to ACIT, CC-2, New Delhi. After going through the contents of those digital data found and seized from the premise of searched person M/s Griha Pravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Abhay Kumar, it is found that such digital data have bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person i.e. M/s Home Concepts Pvt. Ltd. List of core documents seized is as below:

“16.

Now let us come to the satisfaction note recorded by the Learned AO of the assessee herein. The Learned AO of the assessee herein recorded satisfaction note on 15-12-2022 assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act which is enclosed in Pages 5 to 15 of the Paper Book. It is pertinent to note that the Learned AO of the assessee had recorded single and consolidated satisfaction note for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22. For the sake of convenience, the last paragraph of the satisfaction note dated 15-12-2022 recorded by the Learned AO of the assessee herein is reproduced below:-

“The above satisfaction notes recorded as the AO of the person searched has been placed on record. As AO of the person other than the searched person, I have also examined the above referred seized material and the contents of the same. After examining the entries in these documents, I am satisfied that these documents pertain to M/s Gulshan Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and entries appearing therein have a bearing on the determination of the income of M/s Gulshan Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. In view of the same, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiating proceeding under Section 153C r.w.s. Section 153A of the I.T Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22.”

17.

From the above, it could be seen that the Learned AO of the assessee herein had recorded consolidated satisfaction note for the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22. Whether recording of consolidated satisfaction note for various assessment years would prove fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction of the Learned AO and consequential framing of assessments under section 153C of the Act was subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka) dated 22-1-2024, wherein it was held as under:-

“53.

Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant/Revenue.

17.1.

We find that the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgement was dismissed which is reported in 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC). The relevant portion of the Head Notes and the order of Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 153C, read with sections 132, 153 and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other persons (General principles) - Assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19 - High Court held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and where a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for different assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings - Whether SLP filed against impugned order of High Court was to be dismissed -Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee]

ORDER

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

3.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 831/2022 (T-IT) dated 22-01-2024/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka) .

4.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

5.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

18.

The Learned AR before us vehemently argued that the satisfaction note prepared by the AO of the assessee is still more audacious. The imaged messages are reproduced therein and legible copy is reproduced in para 4.2 to para 4.7 of the assessment order and the name of the assessee nowhere figures in these messages. As shown in para 4.2, the impugned images were found from the mobile phone of Shri Parveen Jain received from his son, Shri Vaibhav Jain and it shows nine names, Sita Gupta to Sanjeev Gupta- but name of the assessee is not there at all. Identical is the situation in para 4.4 of the assessment order. The Learned AR stated that it is beyond any sane comprehension that when name of the assessee is not even mentioned in the alleged seized documents, how could, the AO of the searched person, be satisfied that the alleged seized material belonged to the assessee or the alleged information pertained to the assessee. The reasons to rope in the assessee are contained in para 4.5 to para 4.10 of the assessment order. The sheets bearing the names of nine parties therein and definitely not of the assessee, was analysed by the revenue to come to the conclusion that the items denoted with ‘C’ were cash entries and with ’B’ were bank entries. The revenue proceeded to examine the bank entries and certain individuals were found and traced on Insights and other Income-tax Database who were supposedly paying the impugned amount. Now, on examination of the matter related to Ms Sita Gupta, first out of the nine entries, the AO claimed to have detected that she had received interest from Gulshan Homes and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd -the assessee herein. The Investigation Unit thereafter and not the AO of the assessee, collected details etc. from the assessee company and as is mentioned in the para 4.15 of the assessment order, the total amount of the alleged cash receipt/ interest was interpolated which did not at all figure in the impugned seized WhatsApp chat. Noteworthy, the name of the assessee was not at all appearing in any seized material. The ld. Counsel further elaborated that the revenue has relied on a WhatsApp chat between Mr Praveen Jain and Mr Sanjeev Gupta as is mentioned in para 4.1 of the assessment order, where Mr Praveen Jain was requesting Mr Sanjeev Gupta to arrange 1/- for some Gulshan ji and not at all for the assessee company. This even does not say what is 1/- or whether it was arranged or not. It also does not at all mention whether it was cheque amount or cash amount. It is also not known whether the same was to be given only to which Gulshan ji (as the name of the assessee is conspicuously absent therein and no presumption at all could be derived that it belonging to the assessee) as loan in cash or for some property to be purchased by Mr Sanjeev Gupta from the assessee or from some other entity belonging to the group of Shri Gulshan Nagpal, if at all, it was he. However, on confrontation by the revenue officer, Mr Sanjeev Gupta categorically stated that he did not know whether it was bank or cash.

19.

The Learned AR then submitted that after receipt of the material from the AO of the searched person, the Learned AO of the assessee was required to be satisfied that the material sent by the AO of the searched person (cloned data of Shri Parveen Jain’s mobile vide seized document reference Annexure A-5) or any information therein ever belonged/ pertained to the assessee herein. As against this patent position of law, the AO of the assessee has used data from the Appraisal report (para 2 of assessment order) as below in his satisfaction note:

i.

Para 4- Upon this co-relation, various individuals were found and traced on Insight portal and other Income Tax database.

ii.

Para 5- Sita Gupta was found to have received interest from Gulshan Homes along with TDS……

iii.

Para 8- From the TDS analysis above, it is clear that the amount of interest paid to Shikha is in 7 transactions….

iv.

Para 9---further, additional evidences in the form of WhatsApp conversation between Sanjiv Gupta and Parveen Jain…

v.

Para 10-- Therefore, summons were issued to Gulshan Homes on 18/08/2021 (a date definitely prior to the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person) to provide ledger account and interest payment details to parties against whom any bank account was reflected………The response received from Gulshan Home establishes the bank account transactions….

vi Para 11- Upon examining of various ledger accounts submitted on behalf of Gulshan Homes, the initial point of providing loan….

vii Para 12 is sufficient proof that this satisfaction note is copy of Appraisal report. It is mentioned that ‘additionally AO may consider calculating the cash interest amount paid as addition in the hands of Gulshan…’ and ‘the monthly interest and date of payment of principle amount is mentioned above for the perusal of AO’.

viii—Para13- it is clear that the sheet found is summary of undisclosed investments facilitated of various clients by Parveen in Gulshan Homes and he himself has invested through wife Seema Jain and person known as Mama..

ix.

Para 14 – Further, Sh. Gulshan Nagpal was called on 16/09/2021 (a date definitely prior to the satisfaction note of AO of the searched person) for personal examination u/s 131(1A)…

(emphasis supplied by us)

20.

The Learned AR submitted that that the Learned AO of the assessee was only required to be satisfied vis-a vis the seized material handed over by the AO of the searched person without any reference to any other information or document even if in his possession received from any source. The satisfaction note based upon the appraisal report, data on Insight Portal regarding TDS of third parties, statements of Shri Gulshan Nagpal etc and therefore, is legally untenable and void ab initio. Moreover, this is not a satisfaction note to initiate any proceedings under section 153C of the Act but conclusions regarding undisclosed income drawn in a firm language. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries Pvt Ltd in Civil Appeal No. of 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.27615/08) on 29-10-2010 has held that:-

“28.

It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony.

29.

the stage of show cause notice itself. Such a close mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature.

31.

It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence.” The ld. Counsel stated further that in fact, in the present case, the assessment order is substantially repetition of the satisfaction note. Gravamen of the above is that the AO was unable to arrive at the requisite satisfaction, solely based upon the seized material received but relied upon the external material which makes the entire proceedings bad in law ab initio.”

21.

In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the Learned AO had invalidly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act for more than one reason as detailed supra and hence the entire search assessment is hereby declared as void ab initio. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,8 & 9 raised by the assessee are allowed.”