Sanjay Aabaji Jadhav, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2111/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7330 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A; 131; 132; 2; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 7 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV, PROP. OF M/S. RUSHABH CONSTRUCTIONS, RITESH APARTMENT, DSOUZA COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK 422005 PAN : ADSPJ1719J / ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NASHIK / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI SANKET JOSHI REVENUE BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 10 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 10 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH ESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, NASHIK DATED 25 - 09 - 2014 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN PRESENT APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING IDENTICAL GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED M HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C ARE VALID. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING : 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING : (I) THAT THE A.O. HAS ISSUED COPIES OF SATISFACTION NOTES TO THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 2019/2013 WHEREIN THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY MATERIAL SEIZED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NOTICES U/S. 153C WERE ISSUED ; (II) THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 10/7 / 2012 FURNISHED BY THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 20/9/2013 CLE ARLY SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION ON THE BASIS OF POST SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S.133 A IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT; (III) THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON FURNISHED IN T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN AUGUST, 2014 IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SATISFACTION NOTE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 20 / 9/2013, THEREFORE THE SO CALLED NOTE IS AN AFTER THOUGHT AS THERE CANNOT BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT SATISFACTION NOTES RECORDED BY THE SAME A.O. ON THE SAME DATE; (IV) THAT THE DIFFERENT SATISFACTION NOTE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN AUGUST, 2014 IS AN AFTER THOUGHT IN VIEW OF HAPPENING OF EVENTS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ; (V) THAT THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT AS SECURITY IN RESPECT OF EMD PAID TO ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD, SEIZED TO BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME BELONGED TO ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD; (VI) THAT THE A.O. HAS ERRED IN RECORDING INCORRECT SATISFACTION IN SO CALLED DIFFERENT SATISFACTION NOTE CLAIMED ON LATER DATE, THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. IS A KICKBACK GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT SUB - CON TRACTOR TO ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD; (VII) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN JUSTIFYING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C BY (VII) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN JUSTIFYING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C BY RECORDING DIF FERENT SATISFACTION THAT ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. IS ENGAGED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND THE SAID SECURITY CHEQUE IS M RESPECT OF UNRECORDED LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT IN CASH; 3 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 (VIII) THAT FOR INVOLVING ACTION U/S.153C THE SATISFACTION IS TO BE RECORDED BY THE A.O. AND NOT BY CIT(A); (IX) THAT IN ENQUIRY MADE BY CIT(A) U/S. 133(6), ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE SAID CHEQUE OF RS. 11 LACS WAS OBTAINED FROM THE APPELLANT AS SECURITY AGAINST THE EMD PAID BY ASHOKA BUILDCON AND HENCE THE DIFFERENT SATISFACTIONS RECORDED BY THE A.O. AND CIT(A) FOR JUSTIFYING THE ACTION U/S. 153C ARE THE WILD AND FALSE IMAGINATION; (X) THAT AS THE SAID ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DID NOT REPRESENTED ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND AS THE A.O. HA S THEREFORE NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID CHEQUE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153C SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASIS OF THE SAID CHEQUE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153C SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY THE A.O.; 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING BOOK RESULTS AND NOT ACCEPTING INCOME RETURNED AS PER AUDITED BOOKS AND FINAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING NET PROFIT OF SUB - CONTRACTORS BUSINESS AT 10% AND 12% OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. 5) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS: (I) THAT THE REASONS STATED BY HIM FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT 10% AND 12% ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE CIT(A) AND TO THE A.O. IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS; (II) T HAT THE ASHOK BUILDING HAS KEPT ITS PROFIT TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT AND HENCE SUB - CONTRACTOR CANNOT EARN PROFIT @ 10% AND 12% OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPT. YOUR ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE ABOVE OR ANY OTHER GROUND /S OF YOUR ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE ABOVE OR ANY OTHER GROUND /S OF APPEAL. 3 . SHRI SANKET JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CI VIL CONTRACTOR AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RUSHABH CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY EXECUTING CONTRACTS FOR ASHOKA GROUP, NASHIK. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB - CON TRACTOR OF M/S. ASHOKA GROUP. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF ASHOKA GROUP ON 20 - 04 - 4 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 2010. SIMULTANEOUSLY, A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON THE ASSES SEE ON 20 - 04 - 2010. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME. IN SEARCH A CTION IN THE CASE OF ASHOKA GROUP AN UNDATED CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS DULY SIGNED BY ASSESSEE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF ASHOKA GROUP WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCH ED PARTY I.E. ASHOKA GROUP HANDED OVER THE SAID DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10 - 07 - 2012. BEFORE HANDING OVER THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT I.E. THE CHEQUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PARTY RECORDED SATISFACTION, THE SAME IS AT P AGE 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD SHOW THAT ONLY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED ON ASHOKA GROUP IS THE UNDATED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS SIGNED AND ISSUED BY ASSESSEE IN F AVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. APART FROM THE SAID CHEQUE THERE IS NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PARTY WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS OBSERVED THAT IT APPEARS THAT M/S. ASHOKA BUIL DCON LTD. RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT AS KICKBACK FROM M/S. RUSHAB H CONSTRUCTION WHO IS A SUB - CONTRACTOR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT ABOVE REMARKS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PARTY ARE PURELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJUNCTU RES. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO INDICATE THAT CHEQUE FOR RS.11 LAKHS ISSUED BY ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF KICKBACK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED UNDATED , ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD . AS SECURITY. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING A S SUB - CONTRACTOR WITH M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THE CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID COM PANY ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY . 5 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PARTY IN SATISFACTION NOTE WHILE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE CHEQUE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OBSERVED THAT INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE SEARCH PREMISES AT NASHIK OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THE SATISFACTION NOTE S ALL DATED 10.07.2012 RECORDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S ARE AT PAGES 6 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THE SATISFACTION NOTE S , ARE IDENTICALLY WORDED. A PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD SHOW THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND BELONGING TO ASSESSEE EITH ER DURING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ASHOKA GROUP OR SURVEY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 153C AS IT WAS APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS EXPRESSION USED IS BELONG S OR BELONG TO AND NOT PERTAIN TO . THE PRO CEEDINGS U/S. 153C ARE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ONLY ONE DOCUMENT SEIZED I.E. UNDATED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OF RS. 11 LAKHS SIGNED AND ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PARTY SEARCHED I.E. ASHOKA GROUP WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE SAID CHEQUE TO CONNECT IT WITH THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EXPRESSION PERTAINING TO. THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C CAN BE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THIRD PARTY ONLY IF INCRIMIN ATING DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THIRD PARTY/ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF PARTY SEARCHED. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2016. AFTER THE AMENDMENT EXPRESSION SUCH AS PERTAINS OR PERTAIN TO , RELATES TO HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 153C(1) . THUS, P RIOR TO THE AMENDMENT THE EXPRESSION PERTAINS TO WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE REC ORDED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND EXPRESSION S USED IN SECTION. USE OF LOOSE WORDS OR EXPRESSIONS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS USED IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION ARE FATAL T O THE PROCEEDINGS . THUS, THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I . PEPSI FOODS PVT. LT D. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 367 ITR 112 (DELHI); II . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VS. REFAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD. & ANR., 386 ITR 693 (DELHI); III . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD., 380 ITR 612 (DELHI); (DELHI); IV . PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VS. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. & ORS., 386 ITR 680 (DELHI); V . PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN 370 ITR 295 (DELHI) . 3.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DOCUMENT F OUND AND SEIZED 3.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DOCUMENT F OUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH I S AN UNDATED CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS ISSUED BY ASSESSEE. APART FROM THE SAID CHEQUE THERE I S NO OTHER DOCUMENT TO SUGGEST THAT CHEQUE ISSUED BY ASSESSEE WAS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. TH EREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ALLEGED INCR IMINATING MATERIAL I.E. THE CHE QUE WAS WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. SINCE, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND OR SEIZED SINCE, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE PARTY SEARCHED; N O ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE 7 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 140 TTJ 233. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ASSISTANT COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY REPORTED AS 378 ITR 84 AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY REPORTED AS 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC). 3.3 T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PARTY SEARCHED I.E. ASHOKA GROUP WAS THE SAME, STILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE RECORDED VALID SATISFACTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS CLARIFIED THAT EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BOTH THE PARTIES IS SAME, SEPARATE SATISFACTION SHOULD BE RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCH ED PARTY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF VALID SATISFACTION NOTE , THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153C ARE BAD IN LAW AND ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ME CHMEN REPORTED AS 380 ITR 591. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153C ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON ACCOUNT OF INVALID SATISFACTION ALONE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND , DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY RECORDED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN UNDATED CHEQUE FOR RS.11 LAKHS ISSUED BY ASSESSEE WAS FOUND AND SEIZ ED FROM 8 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 THE PREMISES OF ASHOKA GROUP. IT IS ASSESSEE OWN ADMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING A S SUB - CONTRACTOR FOR ASHOKA GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.11 LAKHS PAID BY ASSESSEE TO M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. REPRESENTS KICKBACK. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REJECTING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON TECHNICAL DEFECTS. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTAT IVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS AND THE DECISIONS ON WHICH LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE WHILE MAKING SUBMISSION S . 6. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT UNDATED CHEQUE OF RS.11 LAKHS SIGNED BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE PREMISES OF ASHOKA GROUP. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXECUTING CO NTRACTS FOR AS HOKA GROUP. THEREFORE, THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ASHOKA GROUP IS ESTABLISHED . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT UNDATED CHEQUE FOR RS.11 LAKHS WAS ISSUED BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. A SHOKA BUILDCON LTD. AS SECURITY . SINCE, THE CHEQUE WAS NOT ISSUED TO DISCHARGE ANY LIABILITY OR TOWARDS ANY PAYMENT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. APART FROM THE CHEQUE NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/DOCUMENT WAS EITHER FOUND OR SEIZED AT THE PREMISES OF ASHOKA GROUP. THE P ROCEEDING S U/S. 153C FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN INITIATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE DOCUMENT I.E. UNDATED CHEQUE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN SURVEY PROC EEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE AND THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY ASSESSEE IS IN ANY MANNER CONNECTED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE ANY 9 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YE ARS IN R ESPECT OF THIRD PARTY, T HE ASSESSMENTS FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR S IN RESPECT OF THIRD PARTY CANNOT BE DISTURBED. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAS H ELD THAT WHERE NO ASSESSMENT YEAR SPECIFIC INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT IS FOUND, ASSESSMENTS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE DISTURBED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR S PECIFIC INCRIMINATING INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT RELATABLE TO ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C I S BAD IN LAW. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER : 13. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WHERE NOTHING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ASSESSEE' SPECIFIC INCRIMINATING 'MONEY, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS', THE VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS', THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS CANNOT BE DISTURBE D. FURTHER, THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED MERELY FOR MAKING ROUTINE ADDITIONS, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE DONE IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND OF COURSE, THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS FALL UNDER EXCEPTIONS. AS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINT NO.9 OF HIS NOTE REPRODUCED ABOVE, 'NOTHING IS SEIZED PERTAINING TO ASST. YRS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTE'. ON THIS REASONING ITSELF, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED. THEREFORE, WE DO NO T EXAMINE THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL. OTHERWISE, THE COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST. YRS. 2000 - 01 TO 2001 - 02 IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY M. VIMAWAL VS. ASST T. CIT (SUPRA). FURTHER, HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE VIMAWAL VS. ASST T. CIT (SUPRA). FURTHER, HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF ASST. YR. 2003 - 04 WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED UNDER S. 143(3) ON 30TH MARCH, 2006 I.E. PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENTS BY THE AO ON 18TH APRIL, 2007, THIS ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING. ATTENDIN G TO THESE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL IS SUPERFLUOUS AND MERELY AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE AS WE HAVE UPHELD THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE 'WHERE NOTHING INCRIMINATING I S FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR SUCH YEARS CANNOT BE DISTURBED' AND OTHER LOCAL DECISION CITED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE FOUR APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON IS ALLOWE D AND I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 THE AFORESAID DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (SUPRA) . 7. AS POINTED EARLIER IN THE INSTANT CASE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ASHOKA GROUP I.E . AN UNDATED CHEQUE ISSUED BY ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON L TD. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH IT RELATE S. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CO - RELATION BETWEEN THE DOCUMENT SEIZED AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL , THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY MADE CANNOT BE DISTURBED UNDER SECTION 1 53C. T HERE IS A VACUUM WITH RESPECT TO RELEVANCE OF CHEQUE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SEARCHED PARTY I.E. M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. AND ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THUS, I N THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA.), NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S ON THE BASIS OF UNDATED CHEQUE. 8 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER ASSAILED THE MANNER OF RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AS THEY WERE APPLICABLE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS , SECTION 153C AS THEY WERE APPLICABLE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS , PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW: 153C. [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH 11 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A :] A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 153C SHOWS THAT ON THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF PERSON SEARCHED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAND OVER SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C AGAINST THE WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE EXPRESSION PERTAINING TO. THE EXPRESSIONS BELONG TO AND PERTAIN TO HAVE DIFFERENT CONNOTATION AND MEANINGS. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH MAY PERTAIN TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED BUT IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT S BELONG TO SUCH OTHER PERSON. 9. THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED IN THE PRESENT CASE I.E. ASHOKA GROUP IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW : THIS PAGE IS PHOTOCOPY OF A CHEQUE OF RS . 11 LAKH ISSUE BY M / S RUSHABH CONSTRUCTION TO M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THERE IS NO DATE ON' THIS CHEQUE WHICH IS H AVING NUMBER 417884 AND IS OF SHRI MAHESH CO - OP BANK LTD. IT APPEARS THAT M /S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. HAS RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT AS KICKBACK FROM M/S. RUSHABH CON TRUCTION WHO IS A SUB - CONTRACTOR OF M / S ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THE SURVEY ACTION U/S . 133A OF THE I . T . ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 20 - 04 - 2010 IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S. RUSHABH CONSTRUCTION, PROP. SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JA D HAV, FLAT NO. 3, RITESH APARTMENT, D'SOUZA COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK. THE ASSESSEE IS CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND ENGAGED IN ROAD CONSTRU CTION WORK AND BUIL DING CONSTRUCTION WORK. DURING THE F.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10, HE HAD TAKEN SUB - CONTRACT FROM M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ABL) AND M/S. ASHOKA PRECON PVT. LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS APPL). THE STATEMENT OF SH RI SANJAY A JA DHAV WAS RECORDED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER ON 12 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 20.04.2010. IN REPLY TO Q. NO. HE HAD STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS .1,22,42,222/ - IN THE F.Y. 2007 - 08, RS. 1,97,96,030/ - IN THE FY. 2008 - 09 AND RS. 60,67,270/ - IN THE F.Y. 2009 - 10 ON ACCOUNT OF SUB - CONTRACT FROM M/S. ABL. RS. 60,67,270/ - IN THE F.Y. 2009 - 10 ON ACCOUNT OF SUB - CONTRACT FROM M/S. ABL. B OOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS .25 LACS OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SHRI SANJAY A JA D HA V HAS STATED THAT, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF F.Y. 2007 - 08 & F.Y. 2008 - 09 ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS HARD DISK OF THE COMPUTER IS DAMAGED. IT IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M /S. ABL AND M /S. APPL AND ALSO WHETH ER ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS . 25 LAKH FOR TAXATION OR NOT. CASE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV HAS CASE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO CENTRAL CRICLE - 1, NASHIK BY THE CIT - I, NASHIK BY HIS ORDER U/S. 127 IN F. NO.NSK/CIT - I /TECH/A SHOKA GR./12 - 13/831 DATED 12.06.2012 . SINCE, THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES AT NASHIK OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD., PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 F OR A.Y. 2005 - 06 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153B OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ARE ATTRACTED FOR IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV. ACCORDINGLY THE NOTICES U/S. 153C FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND U/S. 142(1) FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ARE BEING SEPARATELY ISSUED TO SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV FOR FURNISHING RETURN BEING SEPARATELY ISSUED TO SHRI SANJAY AABAJI JADHAV FOR FURNISHING RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICES. A PERUSAL OF SATISFACTION RECORDED REVEAL S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING REFERENCE TO THE CHEQUE HAS USED THE WORDS PERTAINING TO . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AS THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S UNDER APPEAL MANDATE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C CAN BE INITIATED YEAR S UNDER APPEAL MANDATE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C CAN BE INITIATED AGAINST THIRD PARTY ONLY IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCH ED IS SEIZED. 10. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA.) W HILE EXPLAINING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPRESSION S BELONGS TO, RELATES TO OR REFERS TO HAS HELD : BELONGS TO, RELATES TO OR REFERS TO HAS HELD : 16. THIRDLY, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE EXPRESSION BELONGS TO WITH THE 13 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 EXPRESSIONS RELATES TO OR REFERS TO. A REGISTERED SALE DEED, FOR EXAMPLE, BELONGS TO THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AL THOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY RELATES TO OR REFERS TO THE VENDOR. IN THIS EXAMPLE IF THE PURCHASERS PREMISES ARE OR REFERS TO THE VENDOR. IN THIS EXAMPLE IF THE PURCHASERS PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT BELONGS TO THE VENDOR JUST BECAUSE HIS NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT . IN THE CONVERSE CASE IF THE VENDORS PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND A COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COPY BELONGS TO THE PURCHASER JUST BECAUSE IT REFERS TO HIM AND HE (THE PURCHASER) HOLDS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED. IN THIS L IGHT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NONE OF THE THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS - COPIES OF PREFERENCE SHARES, UNSIGNED LEAVES OF CHEQUE BOOKS AND THE COPY OF THE SUPPLY AND LOAN AGREEMENT - CAN BE SAID TO BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER. CAN BE SAID TO BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANYON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED AS 249 T AXMAN 493 HAS AGAIN EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPRESSION S BELONG TO AND PERTAIN TO. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD : 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 , CLEARLY, NOT ADDRESSED TO A PARTICULAR PERSON BUT TO ANYONE WHO MAY RECEIVE IT. THIS DOCUMENT AFTER IT HAS BEEN DISPA TCHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND IN POSSESSION OF SOMEONE ELSE CANNOT SAID TO BELONG TO TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE IT MAY PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BELONG TO IT WHEN IT IS NOT RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT FROM THE SEARCHED PERSO N. 18. THE OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE COPIES OF FORM - 32 OF THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF ITS DIRECTORS REPORT, COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THESE WERE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEPL AND FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF DEPL. HERE, AGAIN, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS HAVING BEING FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPL DID NOT BELONG TO DEPL BUT TO THE ASSESSEE. HERE AGAIN, WHILE THE DOCUMENTS MAY PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN THE CONTEXT EXPLAINED ABOVE, THEY CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE DOCUMENTS THAT BELONGED TO THE SEARCHED PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, EVEN WITH REGARD TO THESE DOCUMENTS, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT, OF THE AO OF 14 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 THE SEARCHED PERSON HAVING TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO SEARCHED PERSON BUT TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT EXPRESSION BELONGS TO IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EXPRESSION RELATES TO. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C MANDATES THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH FRO M PREMISES OF SEARCHED PARTY SHOULD BELONG TO THIRD PERSON FOR INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 153C AGAINST HIM. 11 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN UNDATED CR OSSED CHEQUE FOR RS. 11 LAKHS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. THOUGH THE SAID CHEQUE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE CHEQUE, THE SAID CHEQUE BELONGS TO M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. AND NOT TO T HE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE EXPRESSION BELONGS TO MUST NOT BE CONFU SED WITH THE EXPRESSION PERTAINS TO. UNTIL AND UNLESS, IT IS ESTABLISHED T HAT THE DOCUMENT EXPRESSION PERTAINS TO. UNTIL AND UNLESS, IT IS ESTABLISHED T HAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED BELONGS TO PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED , THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C CANNOT BE I NVOKED. 12 . THUS, FROM OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PARTY SEARCHED DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT YEAR S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PARTY SEARCHED DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL OR DOCUMENT SO AS TO BRING THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE PERSON SEARCHED IS SINE QUA NON FOR INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C. T HE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED THE TEST OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM ARE ALSO VITIATED. THUS, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND H O LD THAT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND H O LD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST ASSESSEE U/S . 153C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN RECORDING 15 ITA NO S. 2111 TO 2114/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 SATISFACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 ARE ALLOWED. 13 . IN THE RESULT, FOUR APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY , THE 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 18 TH OCTOBER, 2017 RK /SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK 4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE