No proceedings u/s 153C merely relying on statement of person that he provided accommodation entry to assessee
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3
Dreamcity Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Search and seizure – Assessment of any other person (Condition precedent) – Assessment year 2005-06 – Whether onus is on revenue to show that incriminating material/documents recovered at time of search ‘belongs’ to a person other than searched person and it is not enough for revenue to show that documents either ‘pertain’ to assessee or contains information that ‘relates to’ assessee – Held, yes – A search operation under section 132(1) was carried upon TP Group of cases to which assesse company belonged – During search, various incriminating documents were found and seized which included a letter from Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP) granting licence to assessee for setting up of a residential plot colony and; a letter from DTCP to assessee granting it permission for transfer of aforesaid license number granted to assessee – Further, one DNT who was main controlling person of TP Group of companies, in his sworn statement given under section 132(4), admitted that various group companies including assessee had received bogus accommodation entries from concerns of one SKG who was an accommodation entry operator – On basis of abovesaid documents Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C against assesse – It was noted that licence issued to assessee by DTCP and letter issued by DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, had no relevance for purposes of determining escapement of income of assessee – Consequently, even if those two documents could be said to ‘belonged’ to assessee they were not documents on basis of which jurisdiction could be assumed by Assessing Officer under section 153C – As far as statement of DNT was concerned, though such statement contained information that ‘related’ to assessee, but it could not said to be a document that ‘belonged’ to assessee – Whether, on facts, assumption of jurisdiction quo assessee under section 153C was not valid – Held, yes [Paras 17 to 19] [In favour of assessee]