Facts of the Case
A search and seizure operation under Section 132
was conducted in the Jeevan Jyoti Group on 29.05.2012. Pursuant to the search,
assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153A.
During the course of proceedings, the assessees
filed applications before the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section
245C. The applications were admitted under Section 245D, and reports from the
tax authorities were obtained.
Subsequently, the Settlement Commission passed
orders under Section 245HA causing abatement of the proceedings, thereby
restoring jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer.
Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed
assessments under Sections 153A read with 143(3). The validity of these
assessments, including approval under Section 153D and limitation aspects,
became the subject matter of appellate proceedings.
Search-based assessments following abatement of
Settlement Commission proceedings formed the core controversy.
Issues Involved
- Whether the assessments framed under Sections 153A read with 143(3)
after abatement were valid in law.
- Whether approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical or
without due application of mind.
- Whether the assessments were barred by limitation.
- Whether procedural requirements post-search were properly complied
with.
Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments
- The approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without
proper examination of records.
- The assessments suffered from procedural defects and were not
validly framed.
- Limitation provisions were allegedly violated.
- The search assessments were not sustainable in absence of proper
incriminating material.
Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments
- The Joint Commissioner had granted approval under Section 153D
after due consideration of facts and records.
- Assessments were completed in accordance with law after abatement
of Settlement Commission proceedings.
- Procedural requirements were duly followed.
- Therefore, the assessments were valid and enforceable.
Court Order / Findings (ITAT)
- Upon abatement of proceedings before the Settlement Commission,
jurisdiction validly reverted to the Assessing Officer.
- Assessments under Sections 153A read with 143(3) could therefore be
completed.
- Approval under Section 153D was found to have been granted after
due application of mind based on records.
- Allegations of mechanical approval were not substantiated.
Important Clarification by the Tribunal
- Abatement of Settlement Commission proceedings restores full
assessment powers to the Assessing Officer.
- Approval under Section 153D cannot be presumed mechanical without
concrete evidence.
- Search assessments under Section 153A are a special procedure and must be evaluated in that statutory framework.
Link to download the order –
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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment