Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Smt. Chandrani Chowdhury, Kolkata vs Acit, Cir-52, Kol, Kolkata on 31 January, 2017
mandated by the section, then only could have invoked section 153C of the Act. Section
153C in such cases mandated the A.O. of the person searched, AO to first record his
satisfaction that seized incriminating documents did not belong to the searched persons but
to a third person and thereafter delink the seized material of the third party from the seized
material of the searched persons file, and thereafter transfer the seized materials belonging
to the third party to the jurisdictional AO of the third party, who thereafter has to record his
satisfaction and then initiate proceedings for invoking section 153C of the Act. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case it was mandatory for the A.O. to establish that the
incriminating document seized belonged to such other person and recording of such findings
about ownership of the seized document was a condition precedent. In the present case, the
facts and material on record prove that the seized documents did not belong to the appellant
company and therefore we hold that the proceedings u/s 153C could not have been validly
initiated against the appellant company. Such findings of ours get support from the
judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra).
Finance Act, 2015
Section 139 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 19 May, 2015
mandated by the section, then only could have invoked section 153C of the Act. Section
153C in such cases mandated the A.O. of the person searched, AO to first record his
satisfaction that seized incriminating documents did not belong to the searched persons but
to a third person and thereafter delink the seized material of the third party from the seized
material of the searched persons file, and thereafter transfer the seized materials belonging
to the third party to the jurisdictional AO of the third party, who thereafter has to record his
satisfaction and then initiate proceedings for invoking section 153C of the Act. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case it was mandatory for the A.O. to establish that the
incriminating document seized belonged to such other person and recording of such findings
about ownership of the seized document was a condition precedent. In the present case, the
facts and material on record prove that the seized documents did not belong to the appellant
company and therefore we hold that the proceedings u/s 153C could not have been validly
initiated against the appellant company. Such findings of ours get support from the
judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra).