DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar V. Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sundargarh

ITSSA 60/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5698 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Loose papers; Document seized; Reason to believe; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 132; 153A; 158BC; 13; 153; 158BD; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) सं./ITA Nos.59 to 62/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 to 2013-2014) DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar Vs M/s Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., At: Brindaban Complex, Panposh Road, Rourkela, Sundargarh, Odisha-769004 PAN No. : AAGCM 3910 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.M.Surana, AR स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These four appeals are directed at the instance of Revenue against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, all dated 21.03.2018 for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-2004. 2. In all the three appeals, the revenue has raised the similar grounds, therefore, for the sake of convenience, we shall take into consideration the grounds raised in appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2010-2011. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is Pvt. Ltd. Company engaged in the business of IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 2 trading of iron ores & Steels and other allied products. Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the business premises of one M/s Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Group on 24.10.2013. Certain incriminating books of account, loose sheets were claimed to be found and seized pertaining to the assessee. Notice u/s 153C of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 to 2013-14. The seized documents claimed by the revenue pertaining to the assessee are pages no.33 MAR-03, page 35 MAR-4 and pages 35 to 61 MAR-13. In compliance to the notice return of income were filed in the respective years. Assessment proceedings were completed after making various additions. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions and also challenging the legality of the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act stating that the alleged seized documents are not incriminating in nature and the details mentioned in such seized documents are duly incorporated in the books of account. The additions made by the ld. AO are not based on any of such seized documents. Based on these submission it was contested that the ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act and completing the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 144 IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 3 of the Act which was in absence of seizure of undisclosed assets belonging to the appellant or without seizure of any incriminating books of accounts or documents or information pertaining to the appellant, during the course of search on searched person. Since the issue required factual clarification Ld. CIT(A) sought for a remand report vide letter dated 02.02.2018. Ld. AO submitted the remand report dated 15.02.2018 which was forwarded to appellant for filing the rejoinder. Assessee in its rejoinder again reiterated the facts that nothing incriminating was found belonging to the assessee and an assessment u/s 153C of the Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found and seized in the course of search and also stated that the provisions of section 153C can be invoked only for that A.Y. to which incriminating material pertains and not for the other assessment years. The reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344.Decision of Kolkata I.T.A.T. in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Dhansar Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITANo.920- 923/Kol/2013 dated 09.11.2016. Submissions were also made on the merit of the case stating that the additions are uncalled for. IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 4 5. After considering submissions of the assessee and the remand report filed by the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee holding that none of the material referred by the Ld. AO in the assessment order is incriminating in nature and Ld. CIT(A) also applied ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) and held that the assessment orders for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 framed u/s 153C of the Act are bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 6. As Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment order allowing the legal issue, no discussion is made on the merit of the case i.e. additions made in the instant years under appeal. 7. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before this tribunal. Since common grounds have been raised for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 grounds raised for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced below: (a) On the point of law involved in the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in annulling the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not applying the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 properly since the said section only stipulates that the seized documents should belong to or pertain to assessee. When that condition is satisfied, the assessing officer is well within his jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under that section. It nowhere stipulates that such documents should be incriminating in nature. IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 5 (c) On the point of law, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in observing that provisions of section 153C can be initiated only if the seized documents are incriminating in nature when there is no specific definition of the word 'incriminating' in the Income Tax Act, 1961. (d) Any other grounds with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO and also filed the following written submissions: In these appeals, the deptt. has challenged the action of the Id. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar in cancelling the assessment orders framed u/s.153C r.w.s.144 of the Act on the ground that seized documents were not incriminating in nature. In this regard, the following facts are pertinent: a) Section 153C which is similarly worded to section 158BD of the Act, provides that 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 he shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person. However, there is a distinction between the two provisions inasmuch as under section 153 C notice can be issued only where the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong to such other person, whereas under Section 158BD if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or assets were requisitioned under section 132A, he shall proceed against such other person under section 158BC. rom the comparison of language of Sections 153C and 158BD, we find that the condition for recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the person searched is present in both the cases. In Section 158BD, the Assessing Officer of the person searched is to be satisfied that any undisclosed income belong to any person other than the person searched, while, in the case of Section 153C, the Assessing Officer of the person searched is to be satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article/thing or books of account/documents belong to a person other than the person searched. Thereafter, the IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 6 subsequent procedure in both Sections 158BD and 153C is the same. b) Kindly refer to page-33 of MAR-03 which was seized from the residential premises of director/promoter namely Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal of said company. It refers to unexplained investment made by Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Shri Bijay Choudhury in purchase of land and other incidental expenses. As per this document, the unexplained investment of Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal was to the extent of Rs.8,53,00,000/-. In this regard, kindly refer to the written submissions filed in the case of Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal for AY 2012-13 which are reproduced in para- 5.3 on pages 13 to 19 of the appellate order of CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar. It is clear that out of total investment of Rs.8,53,00,000/-, payments to the extent of Rs.4,57,00,000/- were alleged to have been made by Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. between 06.08.2011 to 19.01.2012. Further Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal himself admitted that he was unable to explain the sources of balance investment of Rs.3,96,00,000/-. Thus by own admission of Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the director/promoter, the entries in seized document belong to Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Coming to the payments of Rs.4,57,00,000/- made by Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., the ITR, Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account of AY 2012-13 were seized ( Pages 35 to 61 of seized document MAR-13). Kindly refer to pages 14 to 27 of paper book Volume-I containing 273 pages dated 24.10.2018. At the outset, said company had shown meagre income of Rs.3,61,970/- for AY 2012-13. Therefore there were grave doubts about the sources of alleged payments. Further the audited balance sheet of Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. did not show that it had made payments to Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal. In fact, he should have been shown as a debtor in the books of account which is not the case here. On the other hand, Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. had shown loans & advances of RsA,75,36,214/- including interest to Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. as per note-7 of the audited accounts. From the details of share capital and share premium, it was apparent that share premium of Rs.3.69 crores was not justified from so called seven shell companies when Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. was only showing interest income of Rs.20.53 lakhs. Thus abovementioned seized documents were incriminating in nature. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105 wherein it was held that if the IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 7 A.O. records the satisfaction, on the basis of material evidence on record, such as statement of the "person searched" that documents found from the premises of "person searched" belonged to the "other person", that documents were seized from the "person searched" and that documents contained transactions, say of cash receipts on sale of shops/ offices, which belonged to "other person". This will fulfill the mandatory requirement of section 153C. Thus entries in seized documents belonged to the appellant company. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of POT vs. Super Malls (P.) Ltd. (76 taxmann.com 267) held that where Assessing Officer had issued satisfaction note under section 153C after satisfying himself with contents of documents seized, the Tribunal could not declare it as invalid on hyper technical ground of incorrect terminology used in said note. The observations in para-9 of said judgement are reproduced as under: "9. A plain reading of the note clearly shows that search in the business premises of two individuals was carried out; equally, survey of premises of the assessee was also carried out. In the course of this search of Shri Ved Prakash Bharti - who also was a director and assessee, some pen drives were found and seized. Further documents listed in Annexure A-I too were seized after their print outs were obtained. These documents detailed cash receipts for the sale of the shops and offices in the assessee's other concerns. In these circumstances, having regard to all these conspectus of facts, the AO expressed under Section 153 C of the Act that the documents so seized "belonged" to the assessee. We are unpursuaded by the assessee's submissions that the expression "belonged", in the context in which it was used has to be understood as imputing "relating to", or any other term . Plainly put, the AO was satisfied that the documents belonged to the assessee in view of what was contained or brought out on a fair reading of their contents. It must not to be overlooked that while construing a document, expressions should not be interpreted too literally as if they are, words, carved in stone or in a Statute - as the ITAT did in this case. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the ITAT should not have allowed the appeal only on this hyper technical ground with regard to the satisfaction note. Those findings are, accordingly, set aside. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Vidharba Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Addl. CIT (278 ITR 521) held that while construing fiscal statute, regard must be had to the strict letter of law and if the court is satisfied that the case falls strictly within the ambit of the relevant provisions of the taxing statute, tax liability under such provisions must be IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 8 imposed. Therefore while interpreting tax statute, the function of the court of law is not to give words in the statute a strained and unnatural meaning of cover and extend its applicability to the areas not intended to be covered under the said statute. Similarly, it is well settled that the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transactions and are required to impose tax on the basis of substance of the matter. It is no doubt true that the preamble of the statute though gives the purpose and object of the statute, however, it will be impermissible to ignore the substantive provisions of the statute and rely only on the preamble for deriving the purpose and object for which the statute is enacted, particularly when the language of the provisions of the statute is clear unambiguous and capable of conveying the meaning intended to be given to such provisions by the Legislature. The judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) is distinguishable on facts & circumstances. In that case, a search had been carried out in the case of Iaipuria Group and notice U/s.153C was issued to Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. On analysis of seized documents, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under; i.) The photocopies of preference shares belonged to Iaipuria Group and not to Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. ii.) Unsigned cheques were found in the cheque-books of Iaipuria Group and had not been handed over to Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. iii.) In respect of supply and loan agreement, only a photocopy had been found from the premises of Iaipuria Group. The original of supply and loan agreement was available with Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. On the basis of above facts, the Hon'ble High court reached a finding that the seized documents did not belong to Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, it is submitted that Section 158BC (which is Similarly worded to Section 153A of the Act), provides that where the A.O. is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any books of account or documents has been seized or requisitioned under section 132A, he shall proceed against such person and issue such person a notice and assess or reassess undisclosed income of such other person. However, there is a distinction between the two provisions inasmuch as under Section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to issue notice to such person in whose case search has IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 9 been initiated u/s.132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after 31.05.2003, requiring him to furnish the returns of income for six assessment years and assess or re- assess the total income of the assessee in respect of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus there is no mention of undisclosed income in Section 153A unlike that in Section 158BC. " i) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia (24 Taxmann.com 98) held that there is no law that assessment has to be referrable to the incriminating material found during the search. In the case of Anil Bhatia, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court being very conscious that the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law and never to write it, held that restricting the additions u/s 153A/153C only in reference to incriminating material would amount to writing the law. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held in para-19 that there is a significant departure from the earlier Block assessment scheme in which the block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the 'total income' of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviations Ltd. vs. DCIT (346 ITR 177) held in para-I 5 that in view of provisions of section 153C, satisfaction that is required to be reached by A.O. having jurisdiction over searched person is that valuable article or books of account or documents seized during search should belong to a person other than a searched person. However, there was no requirement in section 153C(1) that Assessing Officer should also be satisfied that such valuable articles or books of account or documents belonging to other person must conclusively reflect or disclose any undisclosed income. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Pate I vs. CIT (31 taxmann.com 50) (para-22 & 23) also held the similar view. In the cited case, the assessee sold certain land to Sanghvi group. Subsequently, Sanghvi group was subjected to search during which sale deeds of land and agreements entered into by and between tenants of said property and assessee on various dates regarding eviction of tenants were seized. Relying upon said documents, action under section 153C was initiated against assessee. Since documents in question could be said to be belonging to assessee, the action initiated by the A.O. under section 153C was held to be justified IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 10 in spite of the fact that only registered sale deeds and eviction agreements had been seized which could not be said to be incriminating. ii.) The above view is also supported by the following judgements wherein it was held that for assessments u/s.153A/153C, there is no requirement of incriminating material being found during the course of search: 1) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of E. N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (75 taxmann.com 215) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (52 taxmann.com 172) (para-ll) 3) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Savesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India (35 taxmann.com 85) (para-22 & 23) 4) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. St. Francis Clay Decor Tiles (70 taxmann.com 234) (para-21) 5) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Filatex India Ltd. vs. CIT (49 taxmann.com 465) (para-2) 6) Hon'ble Indore ITAT in the case of Rajat Tradecom India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (120 ITD 48) (para-8) c) Coming to the defects pointed out by the Id. AR of the assessee in the satisfaction note, the following facts are very pertinent: i.) The AO. of the searched person has clearly mentioned that seized documents belong to Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. The satisfaction note is not vague as alleged by the Id. AR of the assessee. In the written submissions dated 01.03.2021, it has been alleged that the AO. has mentioned in the satisfaction note that documents pertain to the assessee. However the AO. has not used such words in the satisfaction note. ii.) There is no time limit for issue of notice u/s.l S 3C and only the AO. of the searched person should be satisfied that documents in question belong to "other person". It should be noted that notice u/s.lS3A was issued to Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal on 17.03.201S and notice u/s.lS3C was issued to the appellant company on 2S.03.201S. The AO. wa'!> already having the seized material/documents before recording of satisfaction note. iii.) There is no requirement that the AO. of the searched person at the time of recording of satisfaction note should conclusively prove the quantum of undisclosed income that is likely to be IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 11 raised in the case of "other person". In the case of SSP Aviation Ltd vs. DCIT (20 taxmann.com 214), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in view of provisions of section IS 3 C, satisfaction that is required to be reached by Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over searched person is that valuable article or books of account or documents seized during search belong to a person other than searched person and, it is not necessary that documents so seized must reflect any undisclosed income. There is no requirement that the A.O. should quantify the undisclosed income in the satisfaction note or the period to which it belongs. iv.) In the present case, the A.O. of the searched person and "other person" are same (Shri P. Senthil). Therefore satisfaction note is not required to be prepared in the case of "other person" (Matushree Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.). Once this is the position of law, the fact that notice u/s.153C was issued on 25.03.2015 as against the satisfaction note being recorded on 23.03.2015 are irrelevant. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105 wherein it was held that there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the same AO, if he records the satisfaction, on the basis of material evidence on record, such as statement of the "person searched" that documents found from the premises of "person searched" belonged to the "other person", that documents were seized from the "person searched" and that documents containedtransactions, say of cash receipts on sale of shops/ offices, which belonged to "other person". This will fulfill the mandatory requirement of section 153C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-6.1 has held as under: "In case, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer, as he himself is the Assessing Officer of the searched person and also the Assessing Officer of the other person. However, as observed hereinabove, he must be ~nscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The second requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself". Similar view was held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Services (333 ITR 281) and TVS Securities & Finance (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (42 taxmann.com 441). IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 12 In the case of Ganpati Fincap Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (82 taxmann.com 408), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where Assessing Officer of searched person recorded that documents seized during search belonged to assessee, merely because he had not categorically stated that documents mentioned therein did not belong to searched person would not invalidate assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C in respect of assessee. Where proceeding under section 153C was initiated against assessee on basis of seized documents which could not be said to be non-incriminating on bare perusal and despite of being given several opportunities no submission on merits of case was made by assessee, assessment order passed under said section to make additions was justified. In the case of Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani vs. ACIT (76 taxmann.com 311), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that where Assessing Officer of search person recorded that document found during search was copy of a ledger of books of account of assessee company which evidenced certain cheque payments as well as cash payments to a company by assessee, there was prima facie material to suggest that satisfaction as per section 153C was duly recorded and thus, notice issued to file return to assessee was justified. In the case of Savesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India (35 taxmann.com 85), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that even if assessing authority receiving satisfaction note had not found any thing adverse against assessee on examination of account books, and further seized goods had already been released, notice under section 153C could still be issued to assessee to file return of income. Where bullion seized was released to assessee for having been validly entered in stock books, the Assessing Officer on receiving satisfaction note could still proceed under section 153A against assessee to find out source of income. In the case of 6th Sense Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. PDIT (127 taxmann.com 633), the Hon'ble Chennai High Court held that where -section 153C notice was issued without compliance of statutory condition i.e., issuance of satisfaction note prior to transfer of case to AO and revenue thereafter disavowed said notice and fresh satisfaction notes was drawn up and it was only parallel and pursuant thereto that impugned notice under section 153C was issued, issuance of invalid notice would not compromise assessment proceedings as invalid notice was one that did not exist in eyes of law and must, thus, be ignored and issuance of said notice did not vitiate impugned proceedings and, thus, challenge to impugned notice under section 153C and show cause notice was rejected and proceedings for assessment would continue and be concluded in accordance with law. IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 13 In view of above judicial precedents and facts, these grounds of appeal are required to be allowed in favour of revenue. 9. Per contra ld. counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and also made following submissions: The respondent submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the proceedings U/S 153C for all the four years was bad in law and therefore annulled the assessment. The respondents support the order of the Ld., CIT(A) that the proceedings U/S 153C were bad in law and submits for consideration the following arguments: - 1. Whether the satisfaction recorded was in accordance with law. It is evident from column 5(b) of the Performa that the documents seized were income tax returns, Audit report of Matushree and letter from CSL prestige can by no stretch of imagination be treated as incriminating nor any addition has been made on the basis of such documents. The satisfaction recorded in the file of searched person that the papers belong to Matushree is general in nature. There is no whisper about the contents of the documents or papers which were only income tax returns or audited balance sheet or some letter and how the papers belonged to Matushree and not the searched person. It is not specifically stated as to which year the particular paper relates. In fact, the AO appears to have not even looked into the seized material which is ,evident from column 08 of proforma mentioning the assessment year involved as 2008-09 to 2013-14, covering six years as per mandate of section 153A when in assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, Matushree was not in existence which was incorporated in March 2010. There was complete non application of mind while recording satisfaction note. Further while recording satisfaction in the case of Matushree, on 23.3.2015 the AO was even not aware from where the papers were seized. The AO, in that satisfaction note states that search was conducted in the case of Improve Traders Group on 24.10.2013. In this note he states that documents "pertain" to the assessee found & seized. This shows that he was convinced that the papers do not belong to Matushree but pertain to Matushree. Therefore, there was no specific satisfaction recorded as to which papers were incriminating and belongs to Matushree, on the other hand the AO was convinced that the paper does not belong to Matushree but pertain to Matushree as per satisfaction note on 23.3.2015 which is required under the law. 2.As regards the contention that proceedings u/s 153A of the aCt advance received the proceedings u/s 143C of the Act reliance was IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 14 placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd., Co 370 ITR 295 Delhi & J Chandrashekdar 338 ITR 61 Madras. (i) Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd., Co 370 ITR 295 Delhi (page 53-60 of compilation filed). Vide para para 8 (page 56) that the first step is to satisfy that the document does not belong to assessee. In the instant case the proceedingsu/s 153A was not initiated in the case of searched person on the date when the satisfaction in his file was recorded. The notice u/s.153A was issued on 17.3.2015 whereas the satisfaction uls 153C was recorded on 9.3.2015 .There was no occasion to look into the papers and satisfy that the balance sheet belongs to Matushree since the searched person was substantial shareholder and director of Matushree, it was in that connection, the balance sheet was lying with him. The same belonged to the person searched and not Matushree. The persons searched was never called upon to explain as to whom the balance sheet or other papers belongs. Therefore, the re9uirement that the satisfaction should precede the proceedings u/s 153A is not fulfilled. . (ii) J Chandrashekdar 338 ITR 61 Madras. The judgment has been relied on in the case of Wisdom Realtors Pvt Ltd., at page 38, (Compilation page35-38) holding that the AO did not have the benefit looking into seized material for initiating proceedings uls 153C. In fact, the AO has also not stated in the satisfaction note that he went through the documents even before issue of notice u/s 153A. (iii) Moidu Medicare P Ltd. (page 184-194 of compilation). Vide para 8.3 as to when the proceedings uls 153C can be initiated and further also clarified in para 8.2 (vide page 189-90) (iv) Rohan Patel (page 133-157 of compilation filed). vide para 24 page 156 it was held that the AO has to first decide in the case of searched person that the documents belongs to third person and then only he can proceed with initiation of proceedings u1s 153C. 3.The AO has to satisfy himself that the documents belong to the assessee and not pertain to assessee: - The date of the search was 24.10.2013 i.e. pre amendment date. The law as stood on the date of search is that the document. should belong to third person. There was an amendment w.e.f 1.6.2015 i.e subsequent to the search that the document may pertain to assessee. The word "pertain to' were inserted w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and applies to the searches after that date. Not only that the document should belong to the third persons but document wise satisfaction has to be recorded that it belongs to third party. The documents relied on by the AO is mentioned in Performa 5(b) i.e. income return, audited balance sheet and a letter. It is evident from the satisfaction note dated 9.3.2015 in the file of searched person that except mentioning that the documents belong to IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 15 Matushree, nothing has been stated 'as to how the AO was satisfied that the document belonged to Matushree. In the file of Matushree which is crucial, the AO noted the satisfaction on 23.3.2015 that the document "pertains" to Matushree, AO himself has given a finding vide 5th line page 1 of the assessment order for A Y 2010-11 that the documents "pertaining "to the assessee were found. This confirms that none of the documents belonged to Matushree. Again, in the remand report the AO himself admitted that Paper MAR-3 page 33 belonged to Sri Mahesh Kumar Agarwala and that addition was also made in his hands in assessment year 2012-13. (Copy of order enclosed) Papers cannot belong to two persons. The income tax computation return and audited balance sheet belonged to the searched person since he, was admittedly substantial shareholder, director and as per AO also was associated with Matushree. The satisfaction is crucial to uphold the proceedings U/S 153C. 4. That there should be incriminating paper and document pertaining to the assessee and that two further relevant A.Y. in which the additions are made and the documents should be search which are not disclosed or would not have been disclosed by the assessee to the department. In the case of assessee the alleged seized documents includes the balance sheet of the assessee company which was in public domain and was also on record of the Income Tax Department since it was filed along with return for A.Y. 2011-12, also additions made in the year under appeal are without any reference to the incriminating or documents found during the course of search which in itself made the assessment proceedings bad in law. There should be incriminating papers and document and that too for the relevant assessment. (i) Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. (Page 44-52 of compilation). Kindly see page 46 that the documents should be incriminating in nature. What is incriminating is nature has been discussed in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society that the documents which was .not disclosed or would not have been disclosed to the department. In the instant case the Balance sheet of Matushree was in public domain and was also on record of the department along with the return for AY2011-12. Also please see page 52, that the addition is made without reference to any incriminating paper or document hence the proceedings are bad in law. 5. Further the principle of abatement is not applicable to proceedings U/S 153C. The proceeding U/S 153C can be taken only for those year for which Incriminating document is found and is so recorded in the satisfaction note. The issue is fully covered by the judgement in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society earlier referred to and also relied on by almost all the courts while holding that proceedings u1s 153C can be limited only to the assessment year for which incriminating document is found, which is to be explicitly recorded in the satisfaction note with details therefore. Further action IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 16 u/s153C cannot taken on the basis of inference drawn from. the document which was on record of the department before the date of sear-ch. IBC Knowledge Partner (P) Ltd. 2016 69 taxmann.com 108 (Kar) 10. The reliance was placed on the following decisions: i.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (370 ITR 295) ii. I.T.A.T. Delhi in the case of Anush Finlease and Construction Pvt Ltd. Wisdom Realtors Pvt Ltd ITANo.6576/Del/2013 iii. ITAT Delhi M/s. Prominent Realtech Pvt. Ltd., ITANo.6817 & 6818/Del/2013 iv. ITAT Delhi Nahid Finlease Private Ltd. ITANo.4822 to 48924/Del/2014 v. ITAT Delhi J.R. Modi Finance Private Ltd. vs. ACIT ITANo.5116/Del/2013 vi. I.T.A.T. Chandigarh in the case of Chandigarh Developers Pvt Ltd.,ITANo.994/Chd/2017 vii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. N.S. Software vs. Pr. CIT viii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.566/2017 ix. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. ACIT x. I.T.A.T. Delhi in the case of Lucky Fashions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO xi. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT xii. I.T.A.T. Delhi in the case of Rohan Patel vs. ACIT ITANo.1455/Del/2015 xiii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT ITANo.422/2015] xiv. I.T.A.T. Kolkata Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Imax Infrastructure Private Limited in ITANo.1312/Kol/2017 and others xv. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITANo.499/2011 xvi. I.T.A.T. Cochin in the case of M/s Moidu‟s Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT xvii. I.T.A.T. Delhi in the case of Reliance Estate Agency, Faridabad vs. ACIT ITANos. 1614/Del. /2011 and others xviii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinita Chourasia vs. PCIT xix. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT xx. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 17 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred and relied by both the sides. The common legal issue raised by the revenue in the instant bunch of appeals is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the legal grounds raised by the assessee and also erred in holding that the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153C of the Act for A.Y.2010-11 to 2013-14 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We, observe that search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 24.10.2013 in the case of M/s Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. Following documents were seized by the revenue authorities to be pertaining to the assessee and are incriminating in nature. MAR-03- Page No. 33- Seized document belonging to the investment accounts of M/s Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. by Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Shri Bijay Choudhary (two partners of M/s Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd.). The name of the assessee is no where mentioned in the impugned seized document so as to treat the same as an incrimination material belonging to the assesee. Based on this seized documents additions has been made in the hands of Mr. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal in Assessment Year 2012-13 (copy of Assessment order enclosed). Hence, cannot be treated as an incriminating document belonging to the assessee to initiate proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee. 2. MAR-04-Page No. 35- This is the purchase bill of the BMW car which is duly accounted in the books of the assessee. Thus, it cannot be treated as any incriminating document for invoking the provision of section 153C against the assessee. 3. MAR-13- Page No. 35-61 – These are actually the Balance Sheet and Copy of ITR Acknowledgement of the assessee for the assessee for the A. Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. They are regular books of accounts of the assessee and cannot be treated as an incriminating document to initiate proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee. IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 18 12. Based on these documents proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated. Following additions were made by the ld. AO for A.Y.2010-11 to 2013-14. Sl. No Asst. Year Issue Amount 01 2010- 11 Share capital Rs.1,80,00,000/- 02 2011- 12 Share capital Rs.2,30,00,000/- 03 2012- 13 Unexplained cash deposits Rs.81,36,200/- 04 2013- 14 1. Unexplained cash deposits Rs.53,12,000/- 2. Depreciation on motor car Rs.2,62,303/- 3. Share capital Rs.50,00,000/- 13. Now the issue before us is that whether alleged seized documents are incriminating in nature and whether the additions made by the Ld. AO are based on alleged incriminating material. We find that Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Ld. AO, considered the submissions and rejoinder filed by the assessee and also considered the settled judicial proceedings including judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) and held the assessment proceeding u/s 153C of the Act bad in law and liable to be quashed observing as follows: I have carefully examined the assessment order, submissions of the appellant, remand report of the assessing officer and the rejoinder. It is important to note here that section 153A of I.T. Act. 1961 is for notice and assessment in the case of a 'Searched Person'.Whereas, notice and assessment u/s.153C of I.T.Act,1961 is in respect of 'Other IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 19 Person'. wherein, incriminating material is seized during the course of search in the case of a 'searched Person'. For notice and assessment u/s.153C, the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that undisclosed assets belonging to 'Other Person' or books of account, documents or any information having for a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person should be seized during a search on 'Searched Person'. The judicial opinion on issue of notice and framing of assessment u/s.153C of I.T. Act, 1961 is that the assets or books of account or documents or information relating to/pertaining to the 'other person' must be undisclosed or incriminating in nature. The appellant has relied upon several judgments which are reproduced in paragraph 4.4 above. In particular, the decisions in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society by Hon'ble Tribunal, Pune, by, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have been relied upon by the appellant. The extract of these judgements is as below: a. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 101(Pune) Sinhgad Technical Education Society v. ACIT (Tribunal:Pune) "section 153A, ready, with section 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure- Assessment incase of -Assessment year's 2001-02 to 2003-04 – whether issuance of notice under first provision to section 153A(1) is not automatic and there is need for „assessment year specific incriminating-information‟ in possession of assessing officer to be fountain head for springing satisfaction to him that there exists some income or asset to be assessed in hands of any other person, who are referred to in section 153C – held, yes [In favour of assessee]” B. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) Sinhgad Technical Education Society v. Commissioner of Income- tax -3, Pune (High Court of Bombay): “Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Search and seizure – Assessment of income of any other person (Validity of notice) – Assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 – Assessee was an educational institution and one „N‟ was its President – During search and seizure operation on „n‟ certain loose papers were seized – Commissioner issue notice under section 153C to assessee stating that he had reason to believe that noting in said loose papers were in respect of capitation fees and donations – Tribunal found that documents in question were neither incriminating ones nor recorded unaccounted transactions of assessee – Reasons assigned by Assessing Officer in satisfaction note were found to be silent about assessment year in which specific incriminating information or unaccounted or undisclosed hidden information was discovered or seized by revenue from assessee – Tribunal, therefore, quashed notice issued under section 153C – IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 20 Whether if there was reference made to some loose papers found and seized from „N‟ indicating some „on money‟ receipt during admission process, then assessment year wise co-relation ought to have been established – Held, yes – Whether on facts no substantial question of law arose out of Tribunal‟s order – Held, Yes [Para 9] [In favour of assessee].” C [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290(SC) CIT, Pune vrs Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Supreme Court) “Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Search and seizure- Assessment of income of any other person (validity of notice) – Assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 – Whether as per provisions of section 153C, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to assessment year in question – Held, yes – Where where loose papers found and seized from residence of President of assessee, an educational institution, indicating capitation fees received by various institutions run by assessee did not establish co- relation document-wise with assessment years in question, notice issued under section 153C had rightly been quashed and set aside – Held, yes [Paras 16,18& 19] [In favour of assessee]” As it can be seen from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society, the availability of incriminating material against the „Other person‟ is mandatory for issue of notice and framing of assessment u/s. 153C of I.T.Act,1961. 4.6 In this background, it is now necessary to examine whether the alleged seized documents allegedly pertaining to the appellant are incriminating in nature. a) Page- 33 of seized material MAR-03: This document does not pertain to the appellant. It pertains to investments by Sri Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Vijay Choudhury on account of Improve Traders Pvt. Ltd. Based on this seized document, addition has been made in the hands of Mahesh Kumar Agrwal for assessment year 2012-13 as seen from the assessment order u/s.153A/143(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 dtd.14.10.2016. It is therefore clear that this document does not relate to or pertain to the appellant. b) Page no.35 of seized documents of MAR-4: This is a purchase bill of BMW car which is duly accounted in the books of the appellant and hence can not be treated as incriminating material. In fact, in the assessment order for assessment Year 2013- 14, the assessing officer has held that the only source of income of the appellant is interest and there are no meaningful business activities and hence has disallowed the claim of depreciation on the car, made by the appellant. Page No.35 to 61 of seized document MAR-13: These pages are nothing but a copy of income Tax return, audit report' IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 21 balancesheet, P&L account and related schedules for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2Ol2-13. These pages are also not incriminating in nature' 4.7 Thus , as seen from the above, none of the material is incriminating in nature as far as the appellant is concerned. 4.8 Considering these facts and judgments of various courts, in particular, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra), I am of the considered view that the assessment framed u/s. 153C of I.T. Act, 1961 by the assessing officer is bad in law and it is annulled. 14. After perusing the finding of Ld. CIT(A), submission made by Ld. counsel for the assessee as well as submissions made by the Ld. DR and on examination of the alleged seized documents we found that same are not incriminating in nature. Page 33 seized material MAR-3 pertaines to investment made by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Bijay Choudhury and undisputed fact is that the addition has already been made in the hands of Mukesh Kumar Agarwal for A.Y.2012-13 in the assessment order framed in his case on 14.10.2016. Similarly the page 35 of the seized documents MAR-3 is purchase bill of BMW car. This Car is already accounted for in the books and therefore cannot be treated as incriminating in nature. Similarly page 35 to 61 of seized documents MAR-13 are copies of income tax return audited balance sheet and profit and loss account and other related schedule for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. All these financial statement already stood Annexed with the income tax IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 22 return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 in the regular course. The assessee company was incorporated on 19.02.2010. No business activities was carried out during A.Y. 2010-11. Following the norms of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, consolidated balance sheet was prepared from 19.02.2010 to 31.03.2011. This audited balance sheet was attached with the return of income filed for A.Y. 2011-12 on 28.09.2011. Similarly return for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 31.01.2013 and audited balance sheet was attached thereto and all these documents were filed much before the date of search. We, are satisfied with the fact that the additions made by the Ld. AO are not based on any of the incriminating material referred hereinabove which were seized from the premises of the searched person. 15. Under these given facts there remains no basis for the Ld. AO to initiate assessment proceedings in the case of assessee u/s 153C of the Act. We find support from the decision of Coordinate Bench Kolkata in the case of ACIT vs. Imax Infrastructure Private Limited in ITANo.1312/Kol/2017 and others wherein on identical facts and the legal issue revenue’s appeal was dismissed by Coordinate Bench Kolkata observing as follows: IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 23 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In its Cross Objections filed for all the three years under consideration, the assessee-company has raised a common preliminary issue challenging the validity of the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 153C/143(3) of the Act on the ground that proper satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer as required by Section 153C and in the absence of the same, the initiation of the proceedings under section 153C for all the three years under consideration was bad-in-law. In this regard, the ld. D.R. has placed on record the satisfaction recorded by the assessing Officer for all the three years under consideration, which is as under:- "09.12.2015- A search and seizure operation was conducted in the "Prakash Group of cases on 21/22-11- 2013. The assessee named M/s. Imax Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is connected with this Group. During the course of search/survey operation, several books of account and documents were found and seized/impounded such as IIPL/13 to IIPL/19. On perusal of the seized/impounded documents, it is seen that some documents are related to M/s. Imax Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thus it is reason to satisfy that this case is considered to be a fit case for issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Act. Hence, notice u/s 153C is issued to the assessee for compliance". On perusal of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as above, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the said satisfaction appears to have been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee and not by the Assessing Officer of the searched person as specifically required by section 153C. He has also contended that the said satisfaction in any case is very vague and not specific, inasmuch as, there is no reference particularly to any document found and seized which belonged to the assessee. He has pointed out that what is recorded by the Assessing Officer in the satisfaction is only that certain documents belonged to the assessee without pointing out specifically such documents and the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer thus is not proper or sufficient. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- M/s. N.S. Software (I.T.A. No. 791/2017 dated 18.04.2018), he has contended that in the absence of proper and sufficient satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C itself was invalid and the assessments completed in pursuance thereof are liable to be cancelled being bad-in- law. The ld. D.R. on the other hand has relied on the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer to contend that it satisfies the requirement of section 153C. 5. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. N.S. Software (supra) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In the said case, the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer while initiating the proceedings under section 153C was as under:- "23.07.2010 - A search operation was conducted on Rajdurbar group of cases on 31.07.2008. During the course of search operation at the premises of Party A-20, Residence-cum-Office of Narender Kumar Agarwal, 1 s t & 2 n d Floor, 7, Western Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, various papers were found and seized belonging to M/s. N.S. Softwares Pvt. Ltd. The same are marked as Annexure- A/26, Hard Disk containing books of account of M/s. N.S. Softwares Pvt. Limited. IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 24 Thus the proceedings under section 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated in the above case". In the appeal filed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C read with section 143(3), the validity of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer was challenged by the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the case of the assessee and upheld the validity of satisfaction note. On further appeal, the ITAT found the satisfaction note under section 153C to be inadequate, inter alia, on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not even indicated as to how the vaguely referred documents in the satisfaction note were found to be belonging to the assessee within the meaning of section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal also found that there was no recording/reference about the contents of these documents allegedly pertaining to the assessee. When the matter was travelled to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Their Lordships concurred with the view of the ITAT. It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the Assessing Officer had not explained the steps taken by him to determine that the seized material belonged to the assessee-firm. It was further observed that the satisfaction note had been prepared in a standard mechanical format and did not provide any details about the books of account, which allegedly belonged to the assesee-firm. It was held that the Assessing Officer at the stage of sending notice under section 153C was required to record a specific reason or reasons why the material seized from the other person has a nexus to the assessee to whom the notice under that provision is addressed. It was held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to record a specific satisfaction as to how the recovered material belonged to the assessee in the note that preceded the notice issued under section 153C vitiated the assessment. It was held that since the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 153C(1) was clearly inadequate, the assessment completed in pursuance thereof was also invalid. 6. In arriving at a conclusion as discussed above in the case of M/s. N.S. Softwares (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied heavily on its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Limited [52 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi), wherein it was clarified that section 132(4A) creates a general presumption that the documents found in the control and possession of a person belong to him or her and to rebut this presumption, the Assessing Officer should provide clear and cogent reasons which explain why the seized material belongs to somebody else. In the satisfaction note recorded in the said case, apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and the Assessing Officer was satisfied that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under section 153C, there was nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which were to be normally raised as indicated above, had been rebutted by the Assessing Officer and keeping in view the same, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C of the Act. It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. It was held that the satisfaction of the kind required under section 153C was not discernable from the contents of the satisfaction note and the said note, therefore, was not valid. 7. In the present case, the satisfaction note was apparently recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee and not by the Assessing Officer of the searched IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 25 person as required by the provision of section 153C. A perusal of the said note, which is reproduced hereinabove, shows that the documents referred therein and identified as IIPL/13 to IIPL/19 were found and impounded during the course of survey operation carried out at the business premises of the assessee and there is no specific reference in the said satisfaction note to any documents found during the course of search and seizure action conducted in Prakash Group of cases. There is nothing even to indicate as to how these vaguely referred documents were found to be belonging to the assessee. There is no recording about the contents of these documents allegedly pertaining to the assessee and the Assessing Officer nowhere has explained the steps taken by him to determine that the seized material belonged to the assessee. There is no specific satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as to how the seized material belonged to the assessee. There is a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to provide clear and cogent reasons, which can explain why the seized material belonged to the assessee apart from saying that the documents belonged to the assessee and he was satisfied that it was a fit case for issuing of notice under section 153C. If all these facts of the case are considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.S. Softwares (supra) and Pepsi Foods Pvt. Limited (supra), we find that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is neither adequate nor proper and since it does not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C of the Act, we hold that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C itself was bad-in-law and the assessments completed in pursuance of such initiation are liable to be cancelled being invalid. We accordingly uphold the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee for all the three years under consideration, although on a different ground. 8. Keeping in view our decision rendered above on the preliminary issue raised by the assessee-company in its Cross Objections cancelling the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under section 153C/143(3) of the Act for all the three years under consideration by holding the same to be invalid, the other issues raised by the assessee- company in its Cross Objections as well as by the Revenue in its appeals have become infructuous or academic. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary or expedient to decide the same. 16. We therefore, respectfully following the judicial precedents, decision of the Coordinate Bench Kolkata in the case of Imax Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act carried out in the case of assessee for A.Y.2010-11 to 2013-14 IT(SS)A Nos.59-62/CTK/2018 26 are bad in law and the same are rightly been quashed. Thus, revenue fails on the legal grounds raised before us. 17. In the result, Appeals of the Revenue in IT(SS)ANo.59 to 62/CTK/2018 are dismissed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T., Rules 1963 on 23.12.2021. Sd/- (सी.एम.गगा) (C.M.GARG) Sd/- (मिीष बोरड़) (MANISH BORAD) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 23/12/2021 Patel, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. वविागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ा पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy//