Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was partly allowed. Questioning the same, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the appeals on technical aspects as to whether the invocation of the provisions of Section 153A of the Act is valid or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. While considering the same and while relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS, reported in 383 ITR 168 (KARNATAKA), the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment in Lancy's case after examining the factual aspects of the matter as to whether any incriminating materials were found during the course of search. Questioning the same, the present appeals are filed. The appeals were admitted to consider the following two substantial questions of law:

"i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions"

ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in remitting back the matter to CIT(A) for fresh decision by considering the the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions (383 ITR 168) and with a specific direction to verify the finding of incriminating material during the course of search which goes to the basic question of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act"?

"Para 10 - ..... The condition precedent for application of Section 153A is there should be a search under Section 132. Initiation of proceedings under Section 153A is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during such search."

6. Therefore, the position of law is quite clear. The Tribunal was of the view that the latest judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS reported in (2016) 66 taxmann.com 264 (KARNATAKA) was valid since it is the latest judgment. We have considered the said judgment. Therein the Hon'ble High Court held in para 6, as follows:

"Para 6 - ..... Merely because a search is conducted in the premises of the assessee, would not entitle the Revenue to initiate the process of reassessment, for which there is a separate procedure prescribed in the statute. It is only when the conditions prescribed for reassessment are fulfilled that a concluded assessment can be reopened."

7. On considering the same, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are erroneous. Firstly, the judgment reported in CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY was not even considered in Lancy Construction's case. Seconding, Lancy's case was dismissed at the stage of admission without even a notice to the Assessee. The High Court in the case of LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS, was of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the appeal. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law, the question of admitting the appeal would be inappropriate. A judgment of the court becomes binding only when a question arises for consideration, is contested by both sides and thereafter findings are recorded by the Court. None of these conditions have been fulfilled. There is no notice issued to the other side. No question of law has been determined. The appeal was dismissed, as being bereft of any substantial question of law. Therefore, the judgment reported in Lancy's case cannot be said to be applicable in law or that it is binding for any reason whatsoever. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment in Lancy's case is misplaced. The judgment in Lancy's case does not render the true position in law. It cannot be considered as a precedent.