TAX BATTLE UNFOLDS – ITA 680/2023

 

Case no –ITA 680/2023.

Case Name – principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Central -1 vs. Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Avis Softech Pvt. Ltd.) – ITA 680/2023

 

Court Name – Delhi High Court

Decision date – 08 December ,2023

Coram –

1. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

2. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Introduction-

 

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, the case with Income Tax Appeal No. 680/2023 unfolded a legal battle between the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Central -1 and Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Avis Softech Pvt. Ltd.). The matter was heard by the esteemed bench comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA. The judgment was reserved on December 4, 2023, and subsequently pronounced on December 8, 2023. The appeal, brought under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The issues in contention centered around the scope of assessment under Section 153A and the applicability of legal precedents regarding the introduction of fresh material after a search action. The following provides a glimpse into the proceedings and the court’s considerations in this intricate tax dispute.

Brief facts –

 

The respondent in this case, Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Avis Softech Pvt. Ltd.), was engaged in the development of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for information technology-enabled services in Noida, U.P. On September 30, 2011, the respondent filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2011-12, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.

 

Subsequently, on October 29, 2013, a search and seizure action were conducted at the premises of the respondent. In response to this, a notice dated November 11, 2014, under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act was issued, calling upon the respondent to file a return of income consequent to the search action.

 

On March 22, 2016, the respondent requested the appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Central -1, to treat the original return of income as the return filed in response to the notice under Section 153A. In return, the respondent declared a net profit of Rs. 1,55,13,39,200, claiming a deduction under Section 80IAB of the Act.

 

However, the Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the deduction claimed under Section 80IAB and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Dissatisfied, the respondent challenged the order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

 

During the appellate proceedings, a crucial contention was raised by the respondent, asserting that as no incriminating material related to the assessed was found during the search proceedings, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was legally flawed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, including this additional ground, leading to the subsequent appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in its order dated June 28, 2021, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, resulting in the current appeal before the High Court.

These facts set the stage for the intricate legal issues revolving around the scope of assessment and the introduction of fresh material post-search, forming the crux of the judicial dispute.

 

Issues-

The legal proceedings in this case revolved around several key issues:

 

1. Scope of Assessment under Section 153A:

The primary issue pertained to the scope of assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, contested the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the assessment could extend to income unearthed based on statements recorded during post-search proceedings.

 

2. Applicability of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) Decision:

The appellant raised a specific legal question regarding the applicability of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 Taxman.com 412 (Del). The question centered around whether the principles established in Kabul Chawla applied when fresh material or information was received after the date of the search, as per the judgment in Dr. A.V. Sreekumar vs. CIT (2018) ninety taxman.com 355.

 

3. Treatment of Post-Search Material – Statement of Shri B.P. Singh:

A critical aspect of the case involved the consideration of the statement of Shri B.P. Singh, a valuer, recorded in post-search proceedings. The appellant contended that even though no incriminating material was found during the search, the statement of Shri B.P. Singh formed the basis for disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80IAB of the Act.

 

4. Legality of Initiation of Section 153A Proceedings:

The respondent, Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd., contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was legally flawed, particularly because no incriminating material related to the assessed was discovered during the search action. This raised the broader question of the validity of invoking Section 153A in the absence of such material.

 

The resolution of these issues formed the basis of the judicial deliberations, with the court providing its decision on the appeal.

 

Court analysis and decision –

 

The court engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the appeal, particularly focusing on the scope of assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act and the applicability of legal precedents.

 

1. Scope of Assessment under Section 153A:

The court reiterated the legal position established in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) and further upheld by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Build well Pvt. Ltd. (2023). It clarified that, in the absence of incriminating material, completed assessments could be reiterated, and additions could only be made based on evidence found during the search or related post-search material.

 

2. Applicability of Legal Precedents:

The court addressed the appellant’s specific question about the applicability of Kabul Chawla when fresh material was introduced post-search, referring to the judgment in Dr. A.V. Sreekumar vs. CIT (2018). The court distinguished the present case from Dr. A.V. Sreekumar, stating that the material considered in the current matter was recorded after the search and did not pertain to incriminating documents received through a Tax Evasion Petition.

 

3. Treatment of Post-Search Material – Statement of Shri B.P. Singh:

The court noted the appellant’s reliance on the statement of Shri B.P. Singh, recorded in post-search proceedings, as the basis for disallowance of the claimed deduction. However, the court observed that the circumstances in the present case were distinct from those in Dr. A.V. Sreekumar, as no incriminating material was found during the search against the respondent.

 

4. Legality of Initiation of Section 153A Proceedings:

The court emphasized that, according to settled legal principles, the invocation of Section 153A would not be sustainable in law when no incriminating material pertaining to the assessed was recovered during the search action. It affirmed that assessments under Section 153A should be based on seized material, and in the absence of such material, completed assessments could not be reassessed

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law for consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion-

 

In the culmination of the legal proceedings, the High Court of Delhi, comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA, rendered a detailed and decisive conclusion in the matter of Income Tax Appeal No. 680/2023. The court’s deliberations centered on critical issues surrounding the scope of assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, the applicability of legal precedents, and the treatment of post-search material.

 

1. Scope of Assessment under Section 153A:

The court reaffirmed the well-established legal position elucidated in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) and endorsed by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Build well Pvt. Ltd. (2023). Emphasizing that assessments under Section 153A must be ground in seized material, the court underscored that completed assessments could be reiterated in the absence of incriminating material, and any additions should strictly relate to evidence found during the search.

 

2. Applicability of Legal Precedents:

Addressing the appellant’s query regarding the applicability of Kabul Chawla in cases where fresh material emerged post-search, the court distinguished the present scenario from Dr. A.V. Sreekumar vs. CIT (2018). Noting that the material considered, specifically the statement of Shri B.P. Singh, was record after the search and did not pertain to incriminating documents received through a Tax Evasion Petition, the court clarified the limited scope of Dr. A.V. Sreekumar’s applicability.

 

3. Treatment of Post-Search Material – Statement of Shri B.P. Singh:

The court acknowledged the appellant’s reliance on the statement of Shri B.P. Singh in post-search proceedings. However, it highlighted the absence of incriminating material during the search against the respondent and stressed that the circumstances in the present case did not align with those in Dr. A.V. Sreekumar. Consequently, the court rejected the contention that the statement of Shri B.P. Singh could serve as the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153A.

 

4. Legality of Initiation of Section 153A Proceedings:

In a crucial determination, the court underscored the settled legal principle that the invocation of Section 153A would not be legally sustainable when no incriminating material related to the assessed was uncovered during the search action. Reiterating that assessments under Section 153A must be tethered to seized material, the court held that, in the absence of such material, completed assessments could not be reopened or reassessed.

 

Finally, finding no substantial question of law meriting consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal. This comprehensive conclusion provides clarity on the intricacies of the case, reaffirming the legal principles governing assessments under Section 153A and the nuanced application of precedents in post-search scenarios.

 

 

Insights and Potential questions –

 

1. Potential Question:

– Considering the court’s emphasis on the necessity of incriminating material for sustaining proceedings under Section 153A, what implications might this have on future tax assessments and search actions?

 

2. Insightful Inquiry:

– In cases where post-search statements are used as a basis for reassessment, what criteria should be applied to determine whether such statements qualify as incriminating material, especially when the statements were recorded after the search?

 

3. Potential Question:

– Given the court’s distinction between the present case and Dr. A.V. Sreekumar, what guidance does this provide to tax authorities and practitioners when assessing the relevance and admissibility of material obtained after a search action?

 

4. Insightful Inquiry:

– How might the court’s ruling impact the approach of tax authorities in gathering and utilizing post-search information, and what measures could be taken to ensure a fair and transparent assessment process?

 

5. Potential Question:

– In the context of the court’s adherence to the principles in Kabul Chawla, what considerations should tax professionals keep in mind when advising clients on the implications of a search action and potential reassessment under Section 153A?

 

6. Insightful Inquiry:

– To what extent does the court’s decision contribute to the overall jurisprudence on the interplay between search actions, post-search material, and the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A in income tax cases?

Written by – Abhinav Raj Saxena

The High Court of Delhi

 

Best law firm in Bangalore – High Court lawyer