DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI V. NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4055/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL BHOOT
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Retrospective amendment; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ./ I.T.A. NO(S).4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR(S): 2005 - 06 TO 2010 - 11) D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(3) ROOM NO. 655, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 20. / VS. M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. 216 SHAH & NAHAR INDUSTRIA L ESTATE, DR. E. MOSES ROAD , WORLI, MUMBAI - 18 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACN9808L ( / REVENUE ) : ( / ASSESSEE ) / ( REVENUE BY ) : SHRI. RAHUL RAMAN, D.R / ( ASSESSEE BY ) : SHRI. NIKHIL BHOOT, A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 .05 .2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .07 .2017 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 48, MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 2 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11, DATED 24.04.2015 , WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153A R.W.S. 153C/143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX A CT, 1961 ( FOR SHORT ACT), EACH DATED. 31.03 .201 3 . THAT A S A COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE CLUBBED AND DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE HEREIN FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06, MARKED AS ITA NO. 4055/MUM/2015 . THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD THEREIN RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO SEIZED DOCUMENTS PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ORDERS SHEET DATED 2410 912012 WITH REGARD TO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND DURING SEARCH. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND AND/OR ADD A NE W GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY . BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY: - 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A LISTED PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY WHICH WAS EARLIER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF T Y RE MOULDS, BE A D WIRE AND ALLIED ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INITIALLY PROMOTED BY THE D UNC A N GROUP AS N ATIONAL S TANDARD D UNC A N LIMITED WITH FACILITIES TO MANUFACTURE T Y RE BE A D WIRES AND T Y RE MOULDS, T Y RE DRU M S A N D BE A D WIRE MAKING MACHINERY AT THANE (MAHARASHTRA), DODABALLAPUR AND HOSKOT E (KARNATAKA) AND BADDI (HIMACHAL PRADESH) . T HAT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TURN ED SICK, THEREFORE , PURSUANT TO A REFERENCE FILED WITH THE B OARD FOR I NDUSTRIAL AND F INANCIAL R ECONSTRUCTION (BIFR) IN THE YEAR 2000, THE COMPANY WAS DECLARED SICK UNDER THE S ICK M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 3 I NDUSTRIAL C OMPANIES ( S PECIAL P ROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 (SICA) AS ON 28.01.2002 . THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS THEREAFTER TAKEN OVER BY A GROUP OF TECHNOCRATS LED BY SHRI N.P.S. SHINH AND DR. A.L. ANANTHANARAYANAN IN THE YEAR 2002. THAT IN LIEU OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BIFR IN THE YEAR 2006, TYRE MOULDS UNIT WAS DEMERGED INTO A NEW COMPANY, VIZ. NATIONAL STANDARD T YRE M OULDS (I) LTD. , SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE OF CERTAIN CO NDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS LEFT WITH ITS BEAD TYRE BUSINESS AND LAND AT THANE, WHICH COMPRISED OF TWO PLOTS ADMEASURING ABOUT 8 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACQUIRE D BY A W HOLLY O WNED S UBSIDIARY COMPANY OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD., VIZ. M/S. ANANTH ANARAYANAN C ONSTRUCTION AND FA RMS PVT. LTD. , WHICH PURCHASED ITS 14.98% SHARES ON 17.05.2010, AND 58.96% SHARES ON 19.05.2011. THAT PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID DEVELOPMENT S THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY CHANGED HANDS AND IN MAY 2010, THE LODHA GROUP WERE INDUCTED A S THE PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE COMPANY WAS CHANGED TO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: - 3. BRIEFLY STATED , THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WAS CARRIED ON 10.01.2011 IN THE HANDS OF THE LODHA GROUP OF ENTITIES , WHICH INCLUDED INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE LODHA FAMILY , AS WELL AS THE GROUP COMPANIES AND ENTITIES. THAT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BECAME A PART OF LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) IN THE YEAR 2010, THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH ACTION, ITS PREMISES AT WAGLE ESTATE WHERE THE PROJECT OF THE LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) , VIZ. LODHA E XCELLEN C IA WAS COMING UP , WAS COVERED U/S. 133A. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS THE KEY PERSON OF THE LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) , VIZ. SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA CAME UP WITH A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 199.8 0 CRORES AND OFFERED THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL INCOME IN HIS M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 4 STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) ON 11/12.01.2011, WHICH THEREAFTER WAS CONFIRMED BY HIM AGAIN IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) ON 10.03.2011, AND DETAILS OF THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME WAS FURNISHED BY HIM IN ANNEXURE - 1 IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ENTITIES OF THE LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) . THAT A PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ANNEXURE - 1 THEREIN REVEALED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 19 9.80 CRORES OFFERED BY SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA IN HIS DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATEMEMT RECORDED UNDER SEC. 132(4 ) INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 10.25 LACS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PARKING SPACE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN A.Y. 2011 - 12. THEREAFTER , THE ENTITIES OF THE LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) FILED A N APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI , WHEREIN ADMISSION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WHICH INTERALIA INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF ON - MONEY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF FLATS AND PARKING SPACE . IT MAY HOWEVER BE RELEVANT AND PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD HOWEVER NOT APPROACH ED THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . 4. THAT PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U NDER SEC. 153C OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. T HE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED UNDER SEC. 153A R.W.S. 153C/143(3) , AFTER DELIBERATING ON CERTAIN ISSUES , ASSESS ED THE LOSS IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT ( RS. 6,40, 575) , AS AGAINST THE LATTERS RETURNED LOSS OF ( RS. 3,62,51,460). THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O IN ITS CASE UNDER SEC. 153C , AS WELL AS CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O IN ITS HANDS ON MERITS, CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN ITS HA NDS ON MERITS, THEREIN OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 5 VERY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SECTION 153C IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, VIZ. A.Y. 2006 - 07 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 . THE CIT(A) FI NDING HIMSELF TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C, THUS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153A R.W.S 153C/143(3) ON THE SAID COUNT ITSELF, AND THEREFORE REFRAINED FROM ADJUDIC ATING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN CONTEXT OF THE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS ON MERITS . THE CIT(A) BEING OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, AND THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, VIZ. A.Y. 2006 - 07 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11, THEREIN OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 5.11. I HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENT PAGES 107 - 108 RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THIS DOCUMENT IS A MINUTES OF SCUD MEETING GIVING DETAILS OF PROJECTS, CUSTOMERS, FLAT BOOKED BY THEM, AREA OF THE FLAT, CONSIDERATION, AND DEVIATION FROM LISTED PRICE. THE REMARKS COLUMN EXPLAINS THE DEVIATION AND INDICATES IN MANY CASES PAYMENT IN CASH EUPHEMISTICALLY REFERRED TO AS 'PAYMENT IN OTHER MODE'. HOWEVER, THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY PROJECT OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE VIZ. LODHA EXCELLENCIA. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES I NDICATE THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE LODHA GROUP OF RECEIVING ON - MONEY. HOWEVER, THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION, DOES NOT BEAR ANY REFERENCE TO THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INT O BY THE APPELLANT, SO AS TO ENABLE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153 C . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT CAN ONLY BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT HAS PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT R ECORDED ON OATH OF THE KEY PERSON OF THE GROUP AND HAS NOT SHOWN ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT CAN BE SAID TO BE BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE STATEMENT TOO IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS IN AY 2011 - 12 IN RESPECT OF BUILDING PROJECT LODHA EXCELLE NCIA WHICH IS THE YEAR OF SEARCH. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE BEFORE ME AND THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE NOT BASED ON ANY SIMILAR ISSUE COVERED IN THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA. I AM AWARE THAT THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN THE FINANCE BILL 2015 TO SECTION 153 C WHEREIN JURISDICTION U/S 1 53 C WOUL D BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN WHERE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS P ERTAIN TO OR M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 6 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A PERSON REFERRED TO U/S 153A. THUS IT WILL NOT BE RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE SUCH DOCUMENT BELONGS TO SUCH OTHER PERSON. THIS WILL HAVE AN EFFECT OF MAKING SOME OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY A PPELLANT INAPPLICABLE, WHICH EMPHASIZE THE REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH SEIZED, DOCUMENTS MUST BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A PERSON REFERRED TO U/S 153A . HOWEVER, T HIS IS NOT A RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT AND WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 - 6 - 2015 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO INDICATE ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT, MUCH LESS BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 153 C . INFORMATION GATHERED IN SURVEY CONDUCTED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CERTAINLY VALID FOR USE IN ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2011 - 12 BUT IS OF NO USE IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C FOR AY 2005 - 06 TO AY 2010 - 11. TAKING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATIO N THAT NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO OR PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AND ALSO THE JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON SIMILAR ISSUE AS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATUTE FOR THE AO TO MEET THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ARE NOT SATISFIE D AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE. 6. THE DEPARTMENT BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE STRIKING DOWN OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE A.O HAD WRONGLY ASSUME D JURISDICTION U/S. 153C, HAD THEREIN CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R.) THAT THE CI T(A) HAD WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SECTION 153C WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT AS THE A.O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BY REFERRING TO THE LOOSE PAPERS MARKED AS ANNEXURE A - 4 - P AGE NO. 107 - 108 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON THE LODHA GROUP (SUPRA), HAD RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION IN THE O RDER SHEET DATED 24.09.2012 , THEREFORE, THERE WAS ENOUGH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH JUSTIFIED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C IN M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 7 THE HANDS OF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD VIDE HIS O RDER SHEET NOTING DATED 18.03.2013 CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY AS WAS DISCERNIBLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID LOOSE PAPER S, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 MAY NOT BE ADDED AS ITS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S . THE LD. D.R IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT NOW WHEN THE A.O HAD ISSUE D A N OTICE U/S. 153C TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE SAME WOULD THUS JUSTIFIABLY SUF FICE THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRECONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC.153C THEREIN RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT - 8, VS. SUPER MALLS (P) LTD. (2016) 76 T AXMANN.COM 267 (DEL) AND SSP AVIATION LTD., VS. DCIT (2012) 20 T AXMANN.COM 2 1 4 (DEL ). THE LD. D.R. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C, ALSO RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA RECORDED U/S. 132(4) , W HEREIN THE LATTER HAD MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.110.25 LACS ( ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PARKING ) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. 7. PER CONTRA , THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS NEITHER ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) , THEREFORE , THE A.O HAD CLEARLY TRAVERSED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION AS STOOD CONTEMPLATED U/S. 153C AND WRONGLY FRAMED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 153A R.W.S. 153C/143(3) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. A.R. REFERRING TO THE SCOPE O F THE JURISDICTION AS STOOD VEST ED WITH M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 8 THE A.O U/S. 153C, THEREIN TOOK US THROUGH THE AFORESAID PRE - AMENDED STATUTORY PROVISION AS WAS AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE UP TO 30.05.2015 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PRE - AMENDED SECTIO N 153C CLEARLY REVEALED THAT IT WAS ONLY WHERE PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON AN ASSESSEE U NDER SEC. 132, THAT THE A.O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION , JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THAT HE SHALL AFTER RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN WRITING HAND OVER SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMEN TS TO THE A.O HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IT WAS THUS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT FAILING SATISFACTION OF THE AFORESAID PRECONDITIONS, THE A.O OF THE OTHER PERSON WOULD REMAIN DIVESTED OF HIS JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH AND FRAME ASSESS MENT IN THE LATTERS HAND. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT AS DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF LODHA GROUP ( S UPRA), NOT ONLY ANY DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SEIZED , BUT RATHER THE FACTS OF THE CASE REVEALED THAT NO SUCH DOCUMENT RELATING TO OR EVEN REFERRING TO THE ASSESSEE , MUCH THE LESS BELONGING TO IT, WAS SEIZED . THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAD TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDE R SEC. 153C ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, VIZ. ANNEXURE A - 4 - PAGE NO. 107 - 108 WHICH RELATED TO SCUD MEETING AND REVEALED RECEIPT OF O N - MONEY PERTAINING TO SALE OF FLATS/PARKING SPACE , WAS RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO DI SPROVE AND DISLODGE THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O, THEREIN TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT P AGES OF THE O RDER SHEET OF THE A.O, PLACED AT PAGE NO.2 - 5 OF HIS P APER BOOK (APB) AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECORDINGS BY THE A.O AS ON 05.03.2013 AND 18.03.2013. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 9 THAT THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE A.O HAD THEREIN REQUESTED THE A.O TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS ON LODHA GROUP (SUPRA), VIZ. ANNEXURE A - 4 - PAGE NO. 107 - 10 8 , OR THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AS ALLEGED BY HIM , WERE RELATED OR PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE LD. A.R THEREIN TAKING US THROUGH THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 WH ICH WERE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 6 - 8 OF APB, THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER ANY PART O F THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINED ANY REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NOR THE SAME WERE IN ANY WAY FOUND TO BE RELATED OR PERTAINING TO THE LATTER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED BEFORE US THAT THE A.O BY REFERRING TO THE VERY SAME SEIZED DOCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) , HAD AT P ARA 5 OF HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO ONE M/S SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD., HAD REFERRED TO AND THEREIN RELATED THE SAID DOCUMENTS WITH THE SAID LATTER CONCERN. THE LD. A.R TAKING US THROUGH THE LETTER DATED 22.03.2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O ( PAGE 9 - 10 OF APB) , THEREIN AVERRED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY SUB MITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS , VIZ. PAGE 107 - 108 (SUPRA) WERE IN NO WAY RELATED TO IT, AND HAD CALLED UPON THE A.O TO PROVE TO THE CONTRARY, BUT HOWEVER, THE A.O HAD F A ILED TO REBUT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 153C , THE SIN E QUA NON FOR ASSUMPTION OF VALID JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C THEREIN INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IS FOUND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O AS BELONG ING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFER RED TO IN SECTION 153A . IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS , IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT NOW WHEN A BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED INCRIMINATING SEIZED M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 10 DOCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE 107 - 108 (SUPRA) , AS HAD BEEN REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE A.O FOR JUSTIFYING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U NDER SEC. 153C IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , WERE BY NO MEANS FOUND TO BE PERTAINING OR EVEN REFERRING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , MUCH THE LESS BELONGING TO THE LATTER, THEREFORE, THE A.O HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 153C , WHICH COULD NOT BE SUSTAIN ED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED . THE LD. A.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION RELIED ON A HOST OF A JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S , AS UNDER: - (I) CIT, CENTRAL - III, MUMBAI VS. ARPIT LAND (P) LTD. (2017) 78 T AXMANN.COM 300 (BOM) (II) CIT - 3, P UNE VS. SIN HG AD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (2015) 63 T AXMANN.COM 14 ( BOM ) (III) PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2014) 50 T AXMANN.COM 299 (DEL) (IV) VIJAYBHAI N. CHA N DRANI VS. ACIT (2010) 231 CTR 474 (GUJ) (V) MEGMANI ORGANIC S LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 129 TTJ 255 ( AH D ) . 8. THE LD. A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O IN HIS ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY HIM UNDER SEC. 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , HAD THEREIN REFER RED TO AND TAKEN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA R ECORDED UNDER SEC. 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF LODHA GROUP (SUPRA), WHEREIN A DISCLOSURE OF RS.110.25 LACS WAS MADE BY HIM AS REGARDS SALE OF PARKING SPACE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR A.Y 2011 - 12 . THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW , THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C REQUIRES THAT A DOCUMENT BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO A SECTION 153A IS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS, AND AS A S TATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 11 OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH A SEIZED DOCUMENT , THEREFORE , THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ABHINANDAN LODHA ( S UPRA) IN HIS ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY O F ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U NDER SEC . 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WAS HIGHLY MISPLACED. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THEREIN TOOK SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJPAL BHATIA (2011) 10 TAXAMANN.COM 191 (DEL), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY REFERRING TO THE PA RI MATERIA PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 158BD , HAD THEREIN OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT OF A PERSON SUBJECT ED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 13 2 COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS . THE LD. A.R FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH , IN THE CASE OF CHITRA DEVI VS. ACIT (2002) 77 TTJ 640 (J ODH). ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 110 . 25 LACS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY SH. ABHINANDAN LODHA (SUPRA) IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SEC. 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF LODHA GROUP (SUPRA ) , WAS IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2011 - 12 AND DID NOT PERTAIN TO ANY OF THE YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH JURISDICTION H AD BEEN ASSUMED BY THE A.O UNDER 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE SAME ON THE SAID COUNT ALSO WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY GO TO VALIDATE THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C. THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID SUBMI SSIONS IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS NO DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO OR RE FERRING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, MUCH THE LESS BELONGING TO THE LATTER WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE , THE A.O HAD TRANSGRESSED T HE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C AND HAD WRONGLY FRAMED A SSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 153A R.W.S 153C/143(3) IN THE HANDS OF THE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 12 ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE CIT(A) AFTER THOROUGHLY DELIBERATING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF T HE SETTLED P OSITION OF LAW DULY APPRECIAT ED THE ABSENCE OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS FOR VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C BY THE A.O , AND HAD THUS RIGHTLY STRUCK DOWN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. THE LD. A.R THUS AVERRED THAT AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DEVOID OF ANY FORCE, THEREFORE , THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE S FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT BEFORE ADVERTING TO AND ADJUDICATING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PRE - AMENDED SEC. 153C, AS WAS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , AND READ AS UNDER: - SEC. 153C. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN S. 139, S. 147, S. 148,S. 149,S. 151 AND S. 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 S. 15 3 A, 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 . . THUS A BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION REVEALS BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT THAT UP TO 30 TH MAY 2015, THE REQUIREMENT AS PER THE MANDATE OF LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C WAS THAT THE A.O OF THE PERSON SEARCHED SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO SECTION 153A. WE FIND THAT THE SCOPE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 13 OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION IN LIGHT OF THE CONSCIOUS, PURPOSIVE AND INTENTIONAL US AGE OF THE TERM BELONGS OR BELONG TO IN RESPECT OF A DOCUMENT S , THEREIN EX CLUDED FROM ITS SCOPE AND GAMUT SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT S, WHICH THOUGH WERE FOUND TO PERTAIN OR RELATABLE TO SUCH OTHER PERSON, BUT HOWE V ER NOT FOUND TO BE BELONGING TO THE LATTER. THE LEGISLATURE THEREIN REALIZING THE FACT THAT THE USAGE OF THE AFORESAID TERMS SERIOUSLY JEOPARDISED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O IN A CASE WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS WHICH THOUGH PERTAINED TO OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATED TO SUCH OTHER PERSON, BUT WERE NOT FOUND TO BE BELONGING TO HIM , THUS , VIDE A N AMENDMENT MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BY THE F INANCE ACT, 2015 , HAD WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015 DISPENSED WITH THE TERM S BELONGS OR BELONG TO , IN RESPECT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, AND THEREIN SUBSTITUTED THE SAME BY CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 153C (1), WHICH THEREIN TAKES WITHIN ITS SWEEP ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS WHICH PERTAIN OR PERTAINS TO OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, RELATES TO SUCH OTHER PER SON. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT TO SEC. 153C, AS HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE VIDE THE F INANCE ACT , 2015 , IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - DISPUTES HAVE ARISEN AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'BELON GS TO' IN RESPECT OF A DOCUMENT AS FOR INSTANCE WHEN A GIVEN DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM A PERSON IS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. ACCORDINGLY IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE AFORESAID SECTION TO PROVIDE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECT ION 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 BELONGS TO , OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, RELAT E S TO ANY 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 OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 14 AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SU CH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. THAT AS THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT TO S ECTION 153C IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY W.E.F 01.06.2015, THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD BE REGULATED BY THE PRE - AMENDED PROVISIONS AS WERE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE TILL 30.05.2015. WE FIND THAT OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS STANDS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE CIT, CENTRAL - 3, MUMBAI VS. ARPIT LAND (P) LTD., (2017) 78 T AXMANN.COM 300 (BOM) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD AS UNDER: - 6. WE NOTE THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AT THE RELEVANT TIME I.E. PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE, 2015 THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT COULD ONLY BE INITIA TED/PROCEEDED AGAINST A PARTY - ASSESSEE IF THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEI ZURE PROCEEDINGS OF ANOTHER PERSON BELON G ED TO THE PARTY - ASSESSEE CONCERNED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER RECORDS A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ASSESSES DO NOT BELONG TO IT. THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO US TO BE INCORRECT. FURTHER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PLACED RELIANCE UPON A DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN VJAYBHAI N . CHANDRANI VS. ASSTT. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 436 WHICH RECORDS THAT THE CONDITI ON PRECEDENT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BELONG TO ASSESSEE TO WHOM N OTICE IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT. IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT TO US BY MR. MISTRY, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSE E THAT THE ABOVE DECISION WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN C IT VS . VIJAYBHAI N. CHANDRANI [20131 357 ITR 713/217 TAXMAN 138/35 TAXMANN.COM 580. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE APEX CO URT REVERSED THE VIEW OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON THE GROUND THAT EFFICACIOUS ALTERNATIVE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER TO RAISE ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ITS EXTR A ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION. HOWEVER, THE APEX COURT ALSO CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION OF THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE HIGH COURT ON SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY REASON WHY THE CONSTRUCTION PUT ON SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT CORRECT/APPROPRIATE. WE FIND THAT IN ANY CASE OUR COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN CIT VS . SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 15 SOCIETY [2015] 378 ITR 84/235 TAXM AN 163/63 TAXMANN.COM 14 (BOM .) AND REFUSE D TO ENTERTAIN REVENUE'S APPEAL. 1 0 . WE HAVE FURTHER PERUSED THE S ATISFACTION NOTE OF THE A.O , AS WELL AS THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) WHICH HAD BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE A.O TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . WE FIND THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SEIZED DOCUMEN TS VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) DOES NEITHER MAKE ANY REFERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NOR OF ANY TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE LATTER, WHICH COULD GO TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF LODHA GROUP (SUPRA), THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C B Y REFERRING TO THE AFORESAID SEIZED DOUCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 ( S UPRA) , IS HIGHLY MISPLACED. WE FURTHER FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. A.R THAT DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUEST S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 22.03.2013 FILED IN R ESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE A.O, THEREIN CALLING UPON THE LATTER TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) WERE ALLEGED TO BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , NO REPLY HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE A.O . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE THE A.O THAT THE SAME SEIZED DOCUMENT S , VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) HAD BEEN REFER RED TO AND RELATED BY HIM IN PARA NO. 5 OF HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), HAD ALSO REMAIN ED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE A.O. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS NO REFERENCE OF THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , VIZ. G RANDEZZ A AND S UPREMES FINDS ANY MENTION IN THE AFORESAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS, VIZ . PAGE NO. 107 - 108 , NOR ANY REF ERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS FOUND THEREIN, THEREFORE, IT COULD SAFELY BE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 16 CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED. 1 1 . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRINCIP A L CIT - 8 VS. SUPER M ALLS (P) LTD. (2016) 76 TAXMANN.COM 267 (DEL), AND SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 20 TAXAMANN.COM 214 (DEL ), ARE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT WHILE FOR IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUPER MALLS (P) LTD.( S UPRA) IT HAD EMERGED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WERE IN CONTEXT OF THE CASH RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF SHOPS AND OFFICES OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE BACKDROP OF WHICH FACTUAL POSITION THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL BY ADOPTING A HYPER TECHNICAL APPROACH HAD ERRE D IN DISLODGING THE DULY SUBSTANTIATED SATISFACTION OF THE A.O THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN VIEW OF WHAT WAS CONTAINED OR BROUGHT OUT ON A FAIR READING OF THEIR CONTENTS , BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE . THAT SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION L T D. ( S UPRA) , THE A.O BY REFERRING TO THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S WAS SATISFIED THAT THOSE BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, HAD THUS FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE A.O HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE LATTERS CASE. WE FIND THAT UNLIKE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES, IN THE CASE OF THE P RESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY, AS OBSERVED BY US AT LENGTH HEREINABOVE, AS NEITHER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REFER RED TO BY THE A.O, VIZ. PAGE NO. 107 - 108 (SUPRA) MAKES ANY REFERENCE TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ITS NAME EMERGES IN ANY PART OF THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN COMPARISON TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 17 1 2 . WE FURTHER FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEM ENT WITH THE LD. A.R THAT THE STATEMENT OF SH. ABHINANDAN LODHA (SUPRA) RECORDED UNDER SEC. 132(4) IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF LODHA GROUP (SUPRA) CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A SEIZED DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, THE RE LIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O ON THE SAME TIO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION ASSUMED UNDER SEC. 153C IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN OTHERWISE AS THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 110 . 25 LACS MADE BY SH. ABHINANDAN LODHA (SUPRA) IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SEC. 132(4), IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS RELATABLE TO A.Y. 2011 - 12, AND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY OF THE YEARS IN RESP ECT OF WHICH JURISDICTION HAD BEEN ASSUMED BY THE A.O UNDER 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE SAME ON THE SAID COUNT ALSO SHALL IN NO WAY GO TO CONFER VALIDITY TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153C. 13. W E TH US IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O HAD CLEARLY TRAVERSED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION U/S. 153C AND THEREIN PROCEEDED WITH AND FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A R.W.S. 153C/143(3) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. WE THUS FIND ING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE , UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 14. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06, MARKED AS ITA NO. 4055 /MUM/2015 IS DISMISSED. A.Y. 2006 - 07 TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 ITA(S) NO. 4056 TO 4060/MUM/2015 1 5 . WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID RESPECTIVE YEARS ALSO THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF HIS CONSOLIDATE ORDER , DATED 24.04.2015 , HAD THEREIN STRUCK DOWN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT S BY HOLDING THAT THE A.O IN THE M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 18 ABSENCE OF VALID JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 153C HAD THEREIN PROCEEDED WITH AND FRAMED ASSESSMENT S U/S. 153A R.W.S 153C/143(3) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THUS, IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, OUR OBSERVATIONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 , MARKED AS ITA NO. 4055/MUM/2015 , SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR A . Y (S) 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11, MARKED AS ITA (S) NO S . 4 056 - 4060/MUM/2015, RESPECTIVELY . WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06, MARKED AS ITA NO. 4055/MUM/2015, THEREFORE DISMISS THE AFORESAID APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y (S) . 2006 - 0 7 TO 2010 - 11 . 1 6 . THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 TO 2010 - 11, MARKED AS ITA NO. 4055 TO 4060/MUM/2015 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 . 07.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.C. SHARMA ) (RAVISH SOOD) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 28 .07.2017 PS: ROHIT KUMAR M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA LTD. ITA(S). NO. 4055 - 4060/MUM/2015 - A.Y(S). 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2010 - 11 19 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / D.R, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI