Case: Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred.19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.20. Insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is concerned, we find that the High Court in that case has categorically held that it is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. This proposition of law laid down by the High Court is correct, which is stated by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the said case went in favour of the Revenue when it was found on facts that the documents seized, in fact, pertain to third party, i.e. the assessee, and, therefore, the said condition precedent for taking action under Section 153C of the Act had been satisfied.21. Likewise, the Delhi High Court also decided the case on altogether different facts which will have no bearing once the matter is examined in the aforesaid hue on the facts of this case. The Bombay High Court has rightly distinguished the said judgment as not applicable giving the following reasons:"8. Reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi reported in case of SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177 is misplaced. There, search was carried out in the case of "P" group of companies. It was found that the assessee before the Honble Delhi High Court had acquired certain development rights from "P" group of companies. Based thereon, the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer and he issued notice in terms of Section 153C. Thereupon the proceedings were initiated under section 153A and the assessee was directed to file returns for the six assessment years commencing from 2003-04 onwards. The assessees filed returns for those years but disclosed Nil taxable income. These returns were accepted by the Assessing Officer, however, in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 there was a significant difference in the pattern of assessment for this year also, the return was filed for Nil income but there were certain documents and which showed that there were transactions of sale of development rights and from which profits were generated and taxable for the assessment year 2007-08. Thus, the receipt of Rs. 44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and later on became subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under section 153C read with section 153A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld the satisfaction and the Delhi High Court found that the machinery provided under section 153C read with section 153A equally facilitates inquiry regarding existence of undisclosed income in the hands of a person other than searched person. The provisions have been referred to in details in dealing with a challenge to the legality and validity of the seizure and action founded thereon. We do not find anything in this judgment which would enable us to hold that the tribunals understanding of the said legal provision suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Delhi High Court judgment, therefore, will not carry the case of the revenue any further."We, thus, do not find any merit in these appeals.22. We now advert to the implication of the fact which has been emphasised in para 15. As pointed out in the said para, the assessment order passed by the AO covers eight Assessment Years. Assessment done in six Assessment Years is under Section 153C of the Act. Assessment order is set aside only in respect of four such Assessment Years that too on the technical ground, noted above. This objection pertaining to the four Assessment Years in question does not relate to the other two Assessment Years, namely, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Likewise, this decision has no bearing in respect of assessment done qua Assessment Year 1999-2000 as well as Assessment Year 2006-07. The necessary consequence would be that insofar as the conclusions of the AO in his assessment order regarding the activities of the trust not being genuine and not carried out in accordance with the trust deed or cancellation of registration, denial of benefits of Sections 11 and 12 etc. are concerned, the same would not be affected by this judgment. It is, thus, clarified that this Court has not dealt with the matter on merits insofar as incriminating material found against the assessee or Mr. Navale is concerned. Pithily put, this Court has not given any clean chit to the assessee insofar as the finding of the AO to the effect that the assessee had been indulging in profiteering and collecting capitation fee is concerned. Whatever other repercussions are there, based on these findings, they can follow. This Court was not informed and, therefore, unaware of any challenge to the assessment order in respect of other four Assessment Years and outcome thereof. Wherever any such proceedings are pending, same would be considered without being affected by the outcome of these proceedings.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that the assessment order passed by the AO on August 7, 2008 covered eight Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Yearto Assessment YearAs noted above, insofar as Assessment Yearis concerned, same was covered under Section 147 of the Act which means in respect of that year, there wereproceedings. Insofar as Assessment Yearis concerned, it was fresh assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, insofar as assessment under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is concerned, it was in respect of Assessment Years6. Out of that, present appeals relate to four Assessment Years, namely,04 covered by notice under Section 153C of the Act. There is a specific purpose in taking note of this aspect which would be stated by us in the concluding paragraphs of thethis requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongsto Assessment Yearor thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years02 was even time barred.19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.20. Insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is concerned, we find that the High Court in that case has categorically held that it is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. This proposition of law laid down by the High Court is correct, which is stated by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the said case went in favour of the Revenue when it was found on facts that the documents seized, in fact, pertain to third party, i.e. the assessee, and, therefore, the said condition precedent for taking action under Section 153C of the Act had been satisfied.We now advert to the implication of the fact which has been emphasised in para 15. As pointed out in the said para, the assessment order passed by the AO covers eight Assessment Years. Assessment done in six Assessment Years is under Section 153C of the Act. Assessment order is set aside only in respect of four such Assessment Years that too on the technical ground, noted above. This objection pertaining to the four Assessment Years in question does not relate to the other two Assessment Years, namely,6. Likewise, this decision has no bearing in respect of assessment done qua Assessment Yearas well as Assessment YearThe necessary consequence would be that insofar as the conclusions of the AO in his assessment order regarding the activities of the trust not being genuine and not carried out in accordance with the trust deed or cancellation of registration, denial of benefits of Sections 11 and 12 etc. are concerned, the same would not be affected by this judgment. It is, thus, clarified that this Court has not dealt with the matter on merits insofar as incriminating material found against the assessee or Mr. Navale is concerned. Pithily put, this Court has not given any clean chit to the assessee insofar as the finding of the AO to the effect that the assessee had been indulging in profiteering and collecting capitation fee is concerned. Whatever other repercussions are there, based on these findings, they can follow. This Court was not informed and, therefore, unaware of any challenge to the assessment order in respect of other four Assessment Years and outcome thereof. Wherever any such proceedings are pending, same would be considered without being affected by the outcome of these proceedings.