The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 52/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5094 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KARUN K ANT OJHA
• Keywords: Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 132; 153A; 143(2); 158BC; 48; 153; 158BD; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member The ACIT, Central Circle- 1(2), Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka Survey No. 207/20, FP 271/2, Sankalp House, Opp. Cooking Culture, B/h. Rajpath, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN No: AFAPG9631E (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Gaurav Nahta, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Karunkant Ojha, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 24-02-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)3, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 18-02-2020, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. 2. The Registry has marked the appeal as delayed by 30 days. But it is noted that the appeal was filed on 09-06-2020 When, taking suo moto cognizance of the prevailing IT(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year 2011-12 I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 2 extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic of Covid-19 , the limitation prescribed for filing appeals already stood extended till further orders’ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23-03-2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.(s0.3/2020. Therefore, there is no delay as such in the filing of the appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in this case, information was received from the DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad that during search action ,u/s. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act ,at the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah on 04.12.2014 an Ms Excel file named “ CCCCC.xls” was seized. The same was also seized in the form of e-data from the residence of Sanket Jitendrabhai Shah during the course of search conducted on 04.12.2014. The sheet contained records of various receipts and payment made during the period 02.04.2010 to 26.08.2010. The perusal of the details of the transaction in the Excel sheet revealed that the assessee, Shri Robin R. Goenka, had paid on money to M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SPIL) for the purpose of purchasing a unit in Abhishree Residence-3 of SIPL. 4. Considering the above , notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the assesee and in response to which assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 70,06,730/-. Thereafter the assesee was show caused as to why the cash paid of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- for the purchase of property in Abhishree Residency Scheme of SIPL as noted in the Excel sheet be not added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment. Due reply was field by the assessee after considering which the A.O. held that the assessee had paid an amount of cash amounting to Rs. 3,10,00,000/- for the purchase of Unit of Abhishree Residency Scheme developed by SIPL out of its undisclosed income and accordingly added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the Ld. CIT(A) held that the proceedings u/s. 153C in the present case could not be initiated on the basis I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 3 of the Excel sheet found in the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah since it did not belong to the assessee, but belonged to Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and SIPL following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal and Others reported in 106 Taxmann.com 137 holding that for a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C for searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015, the document must belong to the assessee. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) at para 4.2 of the order is as under: 4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submission filed by the appellant. The appellant has challenged the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal 106 taxmann.com 137, that material based on which proceedings U/S.153C has been initiated does not belong to him. The appellant has contended that proceedings U/S.153C has been initiated on the basis of MS Excel sheet found during the course of search at the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah on 4.12.2014. The Excel sheet is relating to cash receipt of M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for the various projects during the period from 2.4.2010 to 26,08.2010 totaling to Rs.69,31,41,997/-. The appellant contended that the sheet does not belong to him and therefore, proceedings U/S.153C for the search initiated prior to 1.6.2015 cannot be initiated. The appellant also contended that the AO has made the addition of Rs.3,10,00,000/- for purchase of bunglow No.3, of Abhishree Residential-3 Schemebut he has never purchased the bunglow and in fact the said bungalow has been purchased by Rajesh Kakwani and Suresh Kakwani as per registered document. The appellant contended that there is no document whatsoever in form of banakhat etc. to prove that the appellant at any time entered into any agreement for purchase of property. It is seen that the AO has initiated proceedings U/S.153C on 9.4.2018 on the basis of Excel sheet found during the course of search at the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal shah on 4.12.2014. The AO has noted that for initiation of proceedings U/S.153C, only two conditions have to be satisfied that the document found and seized from the search person should relate to other person and the same should have bearing on the determination of total income of such other person. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in bunch of petitions decided on 2.4.2019 in the case of Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal and Others reported in 106 taxmann.com 137 has held that above proposition that for initiating proceedings, the documents should relate to assessee and is valid for cases after amendment in section 153C w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and for search conducted prior to 1.6.2015, the old provisions of Act will be applicable, as per which for initiating proceedings U/S.153C, the document must belong to the assessee. The relevant finding of the Court is reproduced hereunder :- I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 4 "19. Sections 153 A and 153B of the Act are special provisions carved out by the Legislature for the purpose of assessment of cases pertaining to section 132 and 132A of the Act. These provisions were introduced with effect from 1.6.2003 under Chapter XIV of the Act, which provides for procedure for assessment. The dispute in this case relates to applicability of the provisions of the section 153C of the Act which came to be amended with effect from 1.6.2015, to cases where search had been carried out prior to such amendment having prior to such amendment having come into force. For the purpose of better understanding the controversy involved in the present case, it would be germane to refer to the relevant statutory provisions, which as they stood at the relevant time when the search came to be conducted, read as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19.3 Thus, while prior to the amendment in section 153C of the Act, if the Assessing Officer of the searched person was satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong to or belongs to a person other than the searched person he was required to hand over the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, and that Assessing Officer was required to proceed against such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act and asses or reassess his income. However, by virtue of the amendment in section 153C of the Act which was brought into force with effect from 1st June, 2015, the scope of the section was widened by providing that if the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to; (b) or books of account or documents or documents pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to any person other than the searched person he shall hand over the books of account or documents or assets seized to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. The amendment further provided that that Assessing Officer shall issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153 A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153 A. 19.4 Section 153C of the Act is a machinery provision which is inserted in the statute book for the purpose of carrying out assessments of a person other than the person searched under sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The moot question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to what is relevant date from which the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act would be applicable. While the amended provisions have been expressly brought into force with effect from 1.6.2015, the controversy in the present case arises because the searches in all these case had been conducted prior to 1.6.2015, whereas the proceedings under section 153C of the Act have been initiated after that date and it is in this backdrop that the validity of the impugned notices has I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 5 been called in question. It is the case of the petitioners that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act are triggered by the search, and hence the provisions of law as existing on the date of the search have to be followed, while it is the case the respondents that the provisions of law as existing on the date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the date of issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act have to be followed. 19.5 On behalf of the respective parties, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Knitwears (supra). A perusal of the said decision of the Supreme Court reveals that the question before the Supreme Court was the stage at which the satisfaction note could be prepared. In the facts of the present case, we are concerned with the applicability of the amended provisions which are brought into force with effect from 1.6.2015 as to whether the same would be applicable to cases where the search was conducted prior to that date. Thus, the question is what would be the relevant date for applicability of the amended provision, whether it has to be considered in the context of the date of search or date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person or the date of issuance of notice under i section 153C of the Act. 19.6 On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that section 153C of the Act is a machinery provision. In Calcutta Knitwears (supra), the Supreme Court has held that while I interpreting a machinery provision, the courts would interpret ) a provisions in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts; and that it is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose, the section should be liberally construed. The court has further held that wherever the intention to impose liability is clear, the courts ought not to be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so \ construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. It is contended that the legislature having the clear intent to bring in persons other than the person searched within the ambit of section 153C of the Act even if the books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertain to or any information therein relates to . such other person, the amended proinsions should be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same, namely to tax the total income of the assessee. 19.7 In Calcutta Knitwears (supra) the Supreme Court has held that section 158-BD of the Act is a machinery provision and inserted in the statute book for the purpose of carrying out assessments of a person other than the searched person under sections 132 or 132A of the Act. The court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO, (1994) 4 SCC 276, wherein it has been held thus: "16.lt is well known that when a statute levies a tax it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 6 effective. It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section, and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters. ... Ordinarily the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. (Seie Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. MahaliramRamjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20 (SC) and GursahaiSaigal v. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 1 (SC).)" 19.8 While it is true that section 153C of the Act is also a machinery provision for assessment of income of a person other than the person searched, in the opinion of this court, this is not a case where by virtue of the amendment, there is merely a change in the procedural provisions affecting the assessees who were covered by the unamended provision. By the amendment, a new class of assessees are sought to be brought within the sweep of section 153C of the Act, which affects the substantive rights of the assessees and cannot be said to be a mere change in the procedure. Since the amendment expands the scope of section 153C of the Act by bringing in an assessee if books of account or documents pertaining to him or containing information relating to him have been seized during the course of search, within the fold of that section, this question assumes significance, inasmuch as in the facts of the present case, as on the date of search, it was only if such material belonged to a person other than the searched person, that the Assessing Officer of the searched person could record such satisfaction and forward the material to the Assessing Officer of such other person. However, subsequent to the date of search, the amendment has been brought into force and based on the amendment, the petitioners who were not included within the ambit of section 153C of the Act as on the date of the search, are now sought to be brought within its fold on the ground that the satisfaction note and notice under section 153C of the Act have been issued after the amendment came into force. Therefore, this case does not relate to the interpretation of the provisions of any of the sections, but relates to the stage at which the amended section 153C of the Act can be made applicable, as to whether it relates to the date of search; or the date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person; or the date of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the other person; or the date of issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act. 19.9 In the facts of the present case, the search was conducted in all the cases on a date prior to 1st June, 2015. Therefore, on the date of the search, the Assessing Officer of the person searched could only have recorded satisfaction to the effect that the seized material belongs or belong to the other person. In the present case, the hard disc containing in the information relating to the petitioners admittedly did not belong to them, therefore, as on the date of the search, the essential jurisdictional requirement to I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 7 justify assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act in case of the petitioners, did not exist. It was only on 1st June, 2015 when the amended provisions came into force that the Assessing Officer of the searched person could have formed the requisite belief that the books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertain to or the information contained therein relates to the petitioners. 19.10 In this backdrop, to test the stage of applicability of the amended provisions, a hypothetical example may be taken. The search is carried out in the case of HN Safal group on 4.9.2013. If the Assessing Officer of the searched person had recorded satisfaction that some of the seized/ requisitioned material belongs to a person other than the searched person and forwarded the material to the Assessing Officer of the other person, had issued notice under section 153C of the Act prior to the coming into force of the amended provision. The notice under section 153C of the Act was challenged before the appropriate forum on the ground that the seized material does not belong to such other person and such issue was decided in favour of such person on a finding that the seized material does not belong to the other person. Thereafter, in view of the amendment in section 153C (1) of the Act, since the books of account or documents did not belong to the other person but did pertain to him or the information contained therein related to him, can the Assessing Officer of the searched person once again record satisfaction as contemplated under the amended provision and forward the material to the Assessing Officer of such other person. The answer would be an emphatic "no" as the Assessing Officer of the searched person after recording the earlier satisfaction would have already forwarded the material to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person, therefore, there would be no question of his again forming a satisfaction as required under the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act. 19.11 In the opinion of this court, if a date other than the date of search is taken to be the relevant date for the purpose of recording satisfaction one way or the other, it would result in an anomalous situation wherein in some cases, because the notices under section 153C of the Act were issued prior to the amendment, they would be set aside on the ground that the books of account or documents seized or requisition did not belong to the other person though the same pertained to or the informationA contained therein related to such person, whereas in other cases arising out of the same search proceedings, merely because the notices are issued after the amendment, the same would be considered to be valid as the books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertain to or the information contained therein relate to the other person. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to deal with two sets of identically situated persons differently, merely because in one case the Assessing Officer of the searched person records satisfaction as required under section 153C of the Act prior to the coming into force of the amended provisions and in any another case after the coming into force of the amended provisions. I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 8 19.12 In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vinita Chaurasia, [2017] 394 ITR 758 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held that, at the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June, 2009, i.e., prior to the amendment in section 153C(1) of the Act with effect from 1st June, 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the RevenueA to seek to point out that the document in question 'pertains to' or 'relates to' the assessee. Against this decision the revenue filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.27566 of 2018. The Supreme Court by an order dated 20th August, 2018 condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) -2 v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "xxxxxxxxxxxx 19.14 Thus, it is the date of search that has been considered to be the relevant date for the purpose of applying the amended provisions of section 153C(lj of the Act. 19.15 This court is of the considered view that that the trigger for initiating action whether under section 153A or 153C of the Act is the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act and the statutory provisions as existing on the date of the search would be applicable. The mere fact that there is no limitation for the Assessing Officer of the searched person to record satisfaction will not change the trigger point, namely, the date of the search. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of the searched person would be based on the material seized during the course of the search or requisition and not the assessment made in the case of the searched person, though he may notice such fact during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, whether the satisfaction is recorded immediately after the search, after initiation of proceedings under section 153 A of the Act or after assessment is framed under section 153A of the Act in the case of the searched person, the trigger point remains the same, viz., the search and, therefore, the statutory provision as prevailing on that day would be applicable. While it is true that sections 153 A and 153C of the Act are machinery provisions but the same cannot be made applicable retrospectively, whehr the amendment has expressly been given prospective effect. Besides, though such provisions are machinery proinsions, the amendment brings into its fold persons who are otherwise not covered by the said provisions and therefore, affects the substantive rights of such person. In the opinion of this court, the decision of the Supreme Court in CED v. M.A: Merchant (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein it was held thus: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19.17 In the opinion of this court, the test would be whether at the first point of time when satisfaction could have been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, could he have recorded the satisfaction as envisaged under the amended provision. In Commissioner of Income Tax v.Calcutta Knitwears (supra), the Supreme I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 9 Court has held that for the purpose of section 158BD of the Act, a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the Assessing Officer before he transmits the records to the other Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under section 158BC of the Act; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under section 158BC of the Act; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under section 158BC of the Act of the searched person. 19.18 The CBDT vide circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 has accepted that these guidelines would apply to proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Applying these guidelines, it may be ascertained as to whether at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person could have recorded the requisite satisfaction that the books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertain to or any information contained therein relates to the other person. If no, in the opinion of this court, it is not permissible for him to record such satisfaction at any other stage merely because at a later date the statutory proinsion came to be amended. 19.19 It may be pertinent to note that vide CBDT Circular No.2/2018 dated 15.2.2018, it has been clarified that the\ amended provisions of section 153A of the Act shall apply where search under section 132 of the Act is initiated or requisition under section 132A of the Act is made on or after 1st day of April, 2017. It is further stated therein that section T53C of the Act has also been amended to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in section 153A of the Income Tax Act. It is also stated therein that thus, the amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2017. Therefore, even the CBDT, in the context of the amended provisions of section 153A of the Act, has clarified that it would apply when search or requisition is made after the date of the amendment. Evidently, therefore, even the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act would apply when search or requisition is made after the amendment. xxxxxxxxxxxx Thus, when the legislature thought it fit to make the amendment in section 153B of the Act relating to time limit of assessment under section 153A of the Act retrospective from a particular date, it provided that such retrospectivity would relate to cases where the search is initiated or books of account, documents or other assets are requisitioned, from such date. Thus, even the legislature has considered the initiation of search or making of requisition as the trigger point for applying the provisions of section 153B of the Act to assessment under section 153A of the Act. Under section 153C of the Act also, ultimately, assessment or re-assessment is required to be made in accordance with section 153A of the Act. Thus, when the amended provisions of section 153C (1) of the Act have been brought into force with effect from 1st June, 2015, it hqs to be construed that such amended provisions would apply to a search initiated under section 132 or in relation to books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 10 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2015. Consequently, in relation to searches carried out till 31st May 2015, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act as amended with effect from 1st June, 2015. xxxxxxxxxxxxx 19.24 The decision of this court in UdhnaUdyog Nagar SahkariSangh Ltd. v. Shailendra Lodha, [2016] 75 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat), also does carry the case of the revenue any further inasmuch as in that case the court had found that it was not a case where a vested right was being taken away by an amendment in the statute and the notice under section 143(2) of the Act had not yet become time barred by the time the amendment in the statute took place. In the facts of the present case, the legislature has specifically made the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act applicable with prospective effect from 1.6.2015. If such amended provisions are made applicable to searches carried out prior to 1.6.2015, they affect the substantive rights of persons who are brought within the ambit of section 153C of the Act by virtue of such amendment, and hence, the above decision would have no applicability to the facts of the present case." In the present case, the excel sheet found and seized on 4.12.2014 from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah on the basis of which proceeding U/S.153C was initiated clearly does not belong to appellant but the same belong to Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Therefore, as per decision of jurisdictional High Court, proceeding U/S.153C cannot be initiated in the appellant's case. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has come up before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding the proceedings u/s. 153C to have not been validly initiated in the present case raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act, as invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that excel sheet found during the search clearly mentions the name of assessee wherein he has provided Rs.3,10,00,000/- in cash to Shri. Anil Hiralal Shah and M/s Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and proceedings u/s 153C are in accordance with the law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not explain the source of I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 11 unaccounted cash given to Shri. Anil Hiralal Shah and the name of the assessee was clearly mentioned in the excel sheet namely CCCCC.xls 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the extant provisions of law are applicable as the documents belongs to the assessee whose name has appeared in the excel sheet, having given Rs.3,10,00,000/- in cash towards purchase of property. 9. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and have noted that he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the proposition that in cases of searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015, jurisdiction u/s. 153C could have been validly assumed only in those cases where the documents seized or requisitioned during search on any person ‘belonged” to the assessee (that other person not searched), the emphasis being on belonged. The Hon’ble High Court held that subsequent to amendment made in the section, i.e 153C of the Act, from 01.06.2015 the requirement of documents belonging to the assesee was removed and substituted with the word “pertained” in the section .The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter noted that in the present case the search action took place prior to 01.06.2015 and the Excel sheet found contained entries of receipts and payments of the searched person and SIPL, mentioning the name of the assessee also in it. The document, the Ld.CIT(A) held therefore, belonged to the searched person and SIPL and not the assessee. On this basis, he therefore held that since the document found with the searched person, which was the basis for initiating proceedings. u/s. 153C in the case of the assessee, did not belong to the assessee, the proceedings in the case of the assessee were not validly initiated. 10. Ld. D.R. was unable to bring to our notice any subsequent contrary decision of the Jurisdictional High Court or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Section 153C with respect to the word” belong “used therein prior to 01.06.2015. Also the Ld. D.R. though tried to make out a case that the entry in the Excel sheet was of the assessee and the document, therefore could be said to belong to the asssessee, we do not find any merit in the same. The document admittedly I.T.(SS)A No. 52/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No ACIT vs. Shri Robin Ramavtar Goenka 12 contained entries of receipts and payment of the searched person and SIPL and clearly therefore belonged to the searched person only and merely because it contained one entry relating to the assessee, it could not be said that the document belonged to the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding the proceedings u/s. 153C in the present case to have not been initiated in accordance with law and therefore set aside the order passed by the A.O. 11. Ground no. 1 to 4 of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 14. In effect therefore appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 -02-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 28/02/2022 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद