Facts of the Case

The Revenue filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal had quashed proceedings under Section 153C on the ground that the seized Land Aggregation Agreement did not “belong to” the assessee and therefore could not be used to initiate proceedings against it.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the seized Land Aggregation Agreement could be said to “belong to” the respondent-assessee for the purposes of Section 153C of the Act.
  2. Whether the ITAT was justified in applying the restrictive interpretation of the term “belongs to” post amendment by the Finance Act, 2015.
  3. Whether the amendment substituting the words “belongs to” with “pertains to” applies to searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015.
  4. Whether the matter required remand to the ITAT for adjudication on remaining grounds.

 

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The ITAT erred in relying upon the pre-amendment interpretation of Section 153C as laid down in Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT.
  • The Finance Act, 2015 expanded the scope of Section 153C by replacing the words “belongs to” with “pertains to”.
  • The Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia had clarified that the amended provision applies even to searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015.
  • The ITAT’s order was therefore unsustainable in law.

 

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The assessee fairly conceded that the questions of law framed by the High Court were covered by the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • It was contended that other grounds raised before the Tribunal had not been adjudicated due to the Tribunal’s earlier finding.
  • The assessee sought remand of the matter to the ITAT for consideration of those remaining grounds.

 

Court Order / Findings

  • The Delhi High Court held that the questions framed stood conclusively answered in favour of the Revenue by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia.
  • The Tribunal’s reliance on the restrictive interpretation of “belongs to” was no longer sustainable post-amendment.
  • The Court accepted that the remaining grounds raised by the assessee had not been examined by the ITAT.
  • Accordingly, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside.

 

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that:

  • The amendment to Section 153C introduced by the Finance Act, 2015 applies retrospectively to searches conducted prior to 01.06.2015.
  • Documents which “pertain to” or “relate to” an assessee are sufficient to trigger proceedings under Section 153C.

 

Final Outcome

The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed. The impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for adjudication of the remaining grounds raised by the assessee in accordance with law.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770114723_THEPR.COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX3VsDHARAMRAJCONSTRUCTIONINFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATELIMITED.pdf 

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.