M/S HARSIDDHI LAND AGENCY V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3)

TAXAP/841/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Harsiddhi Land Agency, the appellant, who challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed their earlier appeal and confirmed the assessment order by the CIT(A). The assessment was initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, following a search and seizure operation. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction as the satisfaction for the assessment was based solely on the appraisal report. However, the court found that the satisfaction was also based on the verification of documents seized during the search, thus upholding the jurisdiction and the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752890 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: DARSHAN PATEL
• Keywords: Appraisal report; Assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Satisfaction note
• Section: 153; 153C; 143A(1)(b)

Judgement Text

"C/TAXAP/841/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 841 of 2018 ============================================= M/S HARSIDDHI LAND AGENCY Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3) ============================================= Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 16/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.11.2017 passed in ITA No.534 of 2010 for AY 2006­07, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant ­assessee and has confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order of assessment assessed under Section 143A(1)(b) of the Act, the assssee has preferred present Tax Appeal. 2.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessment proceedings were initiated in exercise of powers under Section 153 C r/w Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. That the assessment has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT. 3.0. It is the case on behalf of the appellant ­ assessee that Assessing Officer lack the jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Act Page 1 of 3 C/TAXAP/841/2018 ORDER as there was no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and looking to the material / document seized during the search and that the satisfaction was only on the basis of appraisal report. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014) 52 Taxmann. Com 220 (Delhi), Shri Patel, learned advocate for the assessee requested to admit/ allow the present appeal. He has taken us to appraisal report of the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit 1, Ahmedabad dated 30.11.2006 as well as satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer recorded while initiating provision of Section 153(c)(1) r/w Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. 4.0. We have heard Shri Patel, learned advocate for the assessee at length. We have also gone through and considered in detailed the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, learned CIT as well as learned ITAT. We have gone through and considered the appraisal report dated 30.11.2006 as well satisfaction note of the AO. Having gone through the satisfaction note, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the satisfaction note is solely on the basis of appraisal note. Merely because the appraisal note was called and considered, it cannot be said that the satisfaction note is solely on the basis of appraisal report. In the satisfaction note itself, it has been specifically stated and mentioned that \"on verification of various documents fond and seized from the residential premises and business premises, it is noticed that page 50 of Annexure A/1, seized from the office cum­ business premises Radhe Developers India Ltd. and Radhe Infrastructure and Projects India Ltd & ors at, Page 2 of 3 C/TAXAP/841/2018 ORDER Chunibhai Chambers, B/h City Gold Cinema, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad seized on 29.09.2006. Document impounded as per Annexure A/1 pages containing 1­207 which is loose paper file in which Page 1 & 2 and Page 4 to 207 the office of Harsiddhi Land Agency, at; Saparnach Faliya, Vanshkhiliya, Tal & Dist. Anand. Impounded on 25.09.2006 which belong to Harsiddhi Land Agency, Anand for which the undersigned is satisfied that proceedings u/s 153 C is required to be invoked\". 5.0. Under the circumstances, it cannot said that the AO lack the jurisdiction while invoking provision of Section 153(c)(1) r/w Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authority below. We concurred with the same. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 4.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no substantial questions of law are arise. Under the circumstances, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. sd/­ (M.R. SHAH, J) sd/­ (A.Y. KOGJE, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD Page 3 of 3 "