Section 153A

Section 153A — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 153A, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• PCIT v Ramesh Chandra Rai Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The AO has added my share of the syndicate's profit straight to my own return. Can he do that without assessing the syndicate?
  No. An association of persons is a separate person under s.2(31) and its income has to be assessed in its own hands. The Assessing Officer cannot bypass that and club the member's share, and the disallowances he thinks the syndicate should have suffered, into the member's individual assessment. Section 86 then decides what, if anything, the member includes.
• CIT v Jasjit Singh Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  A search was made on someone else and my papers were found. From which date are my six years counted - the search, or when my Assessing Officer got the papers?
  From the date your Assessing Officer received the material. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to section 153C(1) does not deal only with abatement: it also fixes the date from which the six year period is reckoned for the person who was not searched. The Revenue's argument that the proviso is confined to abatement, so that the period relates back to the date of the search on the other person, was held insubstantial and without merit. The Court approved the Delhi High Court's reasoning in SSP Aviation and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
• Dy. CIT v U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  A section 153C assessment was made on me after a search on someone else, but nothing incriminating about me was found. Does the Abhisar Buildwell rule protect me too?
  Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of Revenue appeals, holding that where no incriminating material was found during the search — either from the assessee or from the third party — the assessments under section 153C were rightly set aside by the High Court. The Court declined to interfere with those judgments. It did, however, record on the Revenue's request, made on the strength of Abhisar Buildwell, that it remains open to the Revenue to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 in accordance with law, if that is permissible under the law.
• PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Search assessment for a year already completed, but nothing incriminating was found. Can the officer still add?
  No — not under s.153A. For completed or unabated assessments the addition must rest on incriminating material found in the search. But the Court preserved the department's power to reopen those years under ss.147 and 148 instead.
• ITO v Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia Supreme CourtHelps department
  The search was before June 2015 but the notice came later. Which version of s.153C applies?
  The amended one. The 2015 amendment, which changed 'belongs to' into 'pertains to', applies to searches conducted before 1 June 2015 as well, because the trigger is when the material reaches the officer having jurisdiction over the other person.
• PCIT v Mahagun Realtors P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  Is an assessment on an amalgamated company always void?
  No. Corporate death on amalgamation does not by itself invalidate an assessment — it depends on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts, including whether the department was told and how you conducted yourself. Maruti Suzuki was distinguished.
• CIT v Sinhgad Technical Education Society Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The seized documents say nothing about the years being assessed. Can s.153C still be used for them?
  No. The incriminating material must pertain to the assessment years in question, with a document-wise correlation to each. That is a jurisdictional requirement, and without it the notice for those years cannot stand.
• DGIT (Investigation) v Spacewood Furnishers P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  Can I demand the satisfaction note and the reasons recorded before a search warrant was issued against me, and get the search quashed if they look thin?
  No, not at that stage. The Supreme Court held that reasons for the belief under section 132 must be recorded, but need not be communicated to the person searched when the authorisation is issued; the material is disclosed only when assessment proceedings begin after the search. On a writ challenge the reasons may be placed before the court, and the court may examine their relevance to the formation of belief, but not their sufficiency or adequacy. The Delhi High Court had gone into sufficiency, reproduced the satisfaction notes in detail and suspected the file was manipulated; its order was set aside and the search restored.
• PCIT v KRBL Infrastructure Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The officer accepts my lender exists but says the lender's own purchases were bogus. Do I have to explain where the lender got the money?
  No, not for an assessment year before 2023-24. Once identity, creditworthiness and genuineness are established the assessee does not have to prove the genuineness of the funds in the lender's hands, and the officer cannot travel into the lender's own purchases without material connecting them to the assessee. The requirement to explain the source of the source of a loan came in with the Finance Act 2022 and operates from assessment year 2023-24.
• Neeraj Bharadwaj v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The seized material shows a cash payment made in an earlier year. Can six later years be reopened under s.153C on the strength of it?
  No. A s.153C notice can be issued for an assessment year only if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the seized books, documents or assets have a bearing on the determination of the total income for that year. Material about a transaction in one financial year says nothing about the years that follow, and notices for those years cannot stand.
• PCIT v Prabodh Kumar Tiwari High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The department says the section 278E presumption means I must face the whole trial. Has any court actually held the presumption rebutted, and on what material?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the department's leave petitions and let an acquittal under section 276CC stand, holding that the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state under section 278E had been rebutted. It applied the burden at its strictest - once the presumption is triggered the accused must disprove wilful default, and to the criminal standard - and still found it discharged on the Commissioner's own findings and the surrounding circumstances. But the Court reached that result on its own reasoning, and expressly rejected the appellate court's ground that cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(b) vitiates a prosecution under section 276CC.
• Shivani Madan v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My husband and I are both on the sale deed. Must half the annual value be taxed on me?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that merely signing the instrument of conveyance raises no presumption that the income is to be assessed in that person's hands; taxability must reflect who actually obtained the benefit of the property, so an equal share cannot be assumed where the deed is silent.
• Saksham Commodities Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The satisfaction note points to material for one year, but notices under s.153C have come for the whole block of six. Can they stand?
  No. Section 153C confers a power; it does not compel its use across the block. Before issuing a notice the Assessing Officer must identify the assessment year or years to which the seized material relates or which it is likely to affect, and must be satisfied that it is likely to bear on the total income of those years. The proceedings are confined to those years. Where the material speaks to one year, notices for the remaining years of the block are unsustainable, and if the Revenue says a document is incriminating for several years the satisfaction note must record reasons for saying so.
• PCIT v Ojjus Medicare P Ltd High CourtCuts both ways
  How do I count the six and the ten assessment years for a s.153C notice, and does the Rs 50 lakh figure have to be met year by year?
  Count them from different points, and no. For a person who was not searched, the first proviso to section 153C moves the starting point: the date on which the seized books, documents or assets are handed to his own Assessing Officer stands in place of the date of the search. From that point the six assessment years are the six that immediately precede the assessment year relevant to that previous year - the year of the handing over is excluded and treated as the zero year. The further block of 'relevant assessment years' under Explanation 1 to section 153A is not counted the same way: it runs backwards from the END of that assessment year, that is from the 31st of March, and the tenth year is the terminal point. On the money threshold, the Rs 50 lakh in clause (a) of the fourth proviso is satisfied if the escaped income meets the benchmark cumulatively or in the aggregate; it does not have to be reached in each year separately.
• ACIT v Satish Kumar Keshri High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The search on me turned up nothing but the AO still made additions for an old year. Can he?
  Where the assessment for a year stood completed before the search and nothing was pending to abate, an order under s.153A cannot simply reopen it. A completed assessment can be reassessed under s.153A only on incriminating material found in the search having some nexus to undisclosed income - and the Court left that route open, upholding a remand to the Assessing Officer to reassess if such material exists.
• PCIT v Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour Private Limited High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  After a search on or after 1 July 2012, can the officer levy penalty under s.271(1)(c) instead of s.271AAB?
  No, not for the specified previous year. The Jharkhand High Court held that s.271AAB opens with a non obstante clause and excludes s.271(1)(c) where the undisclosed income relates to the specified previous year. Where the search was on 3 September 2014 the penalty, if any, had to be levied under s.271AAB, and because the assessee had admitted nothing in a s.132(4) statement and paid no tax on admitted income, the case fell under clause (c) of s.271AAB(1). The penalty actually levied under s.271(1)(c) could not stand. The Court also held it immaterial that no incriminating document had been found, because the statute keys the choice of section to the date of the search.
• Suresh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my post-search return late, paid the tax with interest, no penalty was ever levied and the additions were deleted in appeal. Can the section 276CC prosecution still go on?
  No. The Jharkhand High Court quashed the prosecution as an abuse of the process of law. Three things weighed with the Court: the department had accepted the return with interest, and where the officer levies interest it must be presumed that he extended the time for filing, which excludes wilful default; no penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(a) had been initiated at all, though the provision was available; and the first appellate authority had by order dated 3 July 2019 set aside the whole of the protective assessment. Applying Gopal Ji Shaw, Gujarat Travancore Agency, Autofil, G.L. Didwania and K.C. Builders, the Court held mens rea could not be made out and quashed the complaint and the cognizance order.
• Harsh Dipak Shah v Union of India (Gujarat) High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  Is 20% a floor? Can the Commissioner order me to deposit less — 5% or 10% — pending appeal?
  Yes. The Gujarat High Court held there is nothing magical about the figure of 20%: it is a starting point, not a floor, and the authority may direct 5% or 10% instead if the equities so require. The discretion under s.220(6) is coupled with a duty to be exercised judicially on prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Note the limits of what that reasoning produced here: of the three writ applications heard together the Court allowed only Special Civil Application No. 19804 of 2021, setting aside the order and remitting it for fresh consideration, and in the two connected applications it expressly declined to interfere having regard to the quantum of the amount involved, leaving those applicants to move the Commissioner (Appeals).
• Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v ACIT (Full Bench) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Bombay had two conflicting lines on defective penalty notices. Which one won?
  The assessee's. A Full Bench held that the grounds must be conveyed through the statutory notice, that an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness, and that non-striking of the irrelevant portion renders the penalty order bad in law.
• PCIT v Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The addition rests only on an entry operator's search statement. Is that enough to assess me?
  No. A s.132(4) statement has evidentiary value, but standing alone and without any other material found in the search it cannot support the assessment. Where the statement came out of a search of a third party, s.153C is the route and cannot be bypassed, and the deponent must be offered for cross-examination.
• PCIT v Best Infrastructure (India) P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The share capital addition rests on a statement I was never allowed to cross-examine. Does it stand?
  No. Statements under s.132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material; a copy of the statement and an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent must be given, and where the statement is retracted or cross-examination is refused it has to be discarded. The s.68 additions fell.
• PCIT v Meeta Gutgutia High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  A search was carried out on us and the department has reopened six years under section 153A. Can it add to a year where nothing incriminating was found?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue was not justified in invoking section 153A against the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04, there being no incriminating material for each of those years. It declined the Revenue's invitation to reconsider Kabul Chawla in the light of Dayawanti Gupta, holding that Dayawanti Gupta turned on distinguishing features - an admission under section 132(4) that transactions were not recorded, a year-wise chart of unrecorded transactions, and habitual concealment - none of which was present here. There was no justification for the Assessing Officer to proceed on surmises and estimates. The appeals were dismissed.
• Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt Ltd v CIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The same officer is the Assessing Officer of the searched person and of our client. Does he still have to record a satisfaction note, and does he need two?
  He must record one, and it must exist before the s.153C proceedings are started. He does not have to write two notes. The single note is recorded in his capacity as the Assessing Officer of the searched person, it is a note about the other person, and it is placed in the other person's file. It does not have to say in terms that the documents do not belong to the searched person.
• ARN Infrastructure India Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The document seized is a letter our client wrote to the person searched. Does it belong to our client for s.153C?
  Not under the pre-amendment wording. A letter written by A to B is B's document, and 'belongs to' is not the same as 'relates to'. The words 'pertains to', which would have caught it, were inserted with effect from 1 June 2015 and operate prospectively, so they do not assist a satisfaction note recorded before that date. Note what that limit attaches to: it is the date of the satisfaction note, not the date of the search. In ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia (SC, 2023) the Supreme Court held the amended provision applies even where the search was conducted before 1 June 2015, if the seized material reaches the Assessing Officer of the other person on or after that date. What survives in ARN is the construction of 'belongs to' and the result on its own facts, the satisfaction note there being dated 21 July 2014; what does not survive is any reading of it as making a pre-2015 search enough to keep a case on the narrow 'belongs to' test. Separately, a document relevant only to one year cannot be used to reopen earlier years.
• PCIT v Neeraj Jindal High CourtHelps taxpayer
  After a search I filed higher income in my section 153A return and the officer accepted it. Can he levy concealment penalty just because the figure went up?
  No, not by itself. The Delhi High Court held that once the assessing officer accepts a return filed under section 153A, that return takes the place of the original return under section 139 for all purposes, including penalty, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) can only be on income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A. A mere increase over the original return, without incriminating evidence, does not show concealment. Explanation 5 could not be invoked either, because no assets relating to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were found; the cash was found in the year of search. The Revenue's four appeals were dismissed.
• CIT v RRJ Securities Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  Papers of mine were seized in a search on somebody else and I have got notices under section 153C for six years. Which six years, and can completed assessments be reopened when the papers show nothing?
  It depends, and here the answer was no on both counts. The Delhi High Court held that for a person other than the searched person, the six assessment years under section 153C run from the date the seized material is handed over to his Assessing Officer - here the satisfaction note of 8 September 2010 - not from the date of the search. Assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were therefore outside the section. It further held that completed assessments cannot be reopened where the seized documents have no bearing on those years. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
• CIT v Kabul Chawla High CourtHelps taxpayer
  A search was carried out at my premises and the Assessing Officer has reopened six years under section 153A — can he add to years already assessed when nothing incriminating was found?
  No. The Delhi High Court held on 28 August 2015 that a completed assessment can be interfered with in a section 153A assessment only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed in the search, or undisclosed income or property discovered in it, which was not produced or disclosed in the original assessment. Where an assessment for a year is not pending on the date of the search it does not abate, and in the absence of such material the completed assessment can only be reiterated. Here the assessments for 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 stood completed, nothing was found, and the deemed dividend and other additions fell.
• Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The satisfaction note says the officer is satisfied and nothing else. Is that enough to found a s.153C notice?
  On s.153C as it stood before 1 June 2015. No. Anything found during a search is presumed by law to belong to the person searched. Before the Assessing Officer of the searched person can say a document belongs to somebody else, he must rebut that presumption on cogent material, and the satisfaction note itself must show the reasons. A note that only recites the word 'satisfied' fails the first step, and everything built on it goes. Read the decision only against that older wording: with effect from 1 June 2015 s.153C was widened to cover books or documents that 'pertain to' the other person or contain information 'relating to' him, and in ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia (SC, 2023) the Supreme Court held the amended provision applies even where the search was conducted before that date. The 'belongs to' analysis in this case is therefore not the current test.
• CIT v Anil Kumar Bhatia High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I was searched, and my earlier returns had only been processed under section 143(1). Can the Assessing Officer reopen all six years under section 153A and add things that have nothing to do with the search?
  Yes, section 153A is validly invoked. The Delhi High Court held the Tribunal was wrong to say section 153A cannot be used where the six years' returns had only been processed under section 143(1). Section 153A opens with a non obstante clause that removes the fetters of sections 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, and it empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the total income - disclosed and undisclosed - for each of the six years. Pending proceedings abate; completed ones do not, and are simply reopened. The Court expressly left open what happens where no incriminating material at all is found.
• SSP Aviation Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  A search was carried out on someone else and my agreements were seized. Can the department open six years of my assessments under section 153C when everything was already in my audited books?
  Yes, it can start the enquiry. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that section 153C(1) requires the searched person's Assessing Officer to be satisfied only that the seized document belongs to another person - not that it discloses undisclosed income of that person. Unlike section 158BD, section 153C does not mention undisclosed income at all. The section is only the first step: the documents go to the other person's Assessing Officer, who then follows the section 153A procedure, and if the returns show the income was accounted for, the proceedings must be closed. Inconvenience is not a ground to strike the machinery down.
• Ashok Chaddha v Income Tax Officer High CourtHelps department
  My post-search assessment under section 153A was completed without any notice under section 143(2). Does Hotel Blue Moon make that fatal?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring an assessment under section 153A to be preceded by a notice under section 143(2). Hotel Blue Moon turned on clause (b) of section 158BC, which expressly applies sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 to a block assessment; section 153A contains no such provision. The words 'so far as may be' in clause (a) of section 153A(1) cannot be stretched to make a section 143(2) notice mandatory, because a specific notice is already required under that clause calling for the return. In any event the two detailed questionnaires issued here served the purpose. The appeal was dismissed.
• ACIT v Serajuddin & Co High CourtCuts both ways
  What must an approval under s.153D actually show on its face, and does last-minute bulk approval survive?
  Draft search assessments were sent to the Additional CIT two days before limitation expired and approval issued with nothing to show the drafts had been read. The Orissa High Court held that while elaborate reasons are not required, there must be some indication that the approving authority examined the draft orders and found they met the requirements of law. The assessments were held invalid, and the Supreme Court later dismissed the Revenue's SLP.
• PCIT v Shiv Kumar Nayyar High CourtCuts both ways
  Does a single, same-day approval covering many years and many cases satisfy s.153D, or does it vitiate the assessment?
  The approving authority granted one approval covering assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 and cleared 43 cases in a single day. The Delhi High Court held that approval under s.153D cannot be a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping and must reflect an appropriate application of mind, and upheld the Tribunal's annulment of the search assessments.
• DCIT v Priya Blue Industries P Ltd ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO has levied a s.271AA penalty saying I did not maintain transfer pricing documentation, without saying which documents. Does that penalty stand?
  No, on this decision. A penalty under s.271AA has to identify the information or document prescribed by s.92D read with rule 10D that was not maintained or furnished; a general assertion will not do, and here neither the assessment order nor the penalty order said which document was missing. The Tribunal gave a second and independent ground: the penalty was passed in a perfunctory manner without the requisite show-cause notice and without proper opportunity, the officer having called for rule 10D documents without naming any clause of the rule. That the transactions the penalty was levied on had not been adjusted by the Transfer Pricing Officer at all was added as a further point, not as the basis of the decision.
• Garware Technical Fibres Ltd v DCIT ITATCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The addition rests on a pen drive seized in the search and no s.65B certificate was drawn at the time. Does that kill it?
  No, not on these facts, and the reason is narrower than the headlines. The Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report, the Assessing Officer produced a certificate under s.65B(4) for the pen drive, and the assessee - which had never taken the point before the Assessing Officer - made no counter-comment when the certificate was put to it. On the record as the Commissioner (Appeals) found it the certificates had been drawn at the time of the search and were merely produced late. In the absence of any contrary material the addition based on the pen drive was upheld, for all eight years. The order was not otherwise against the assessee: on quantum it confined the tax to the profit element in the unrecorded receipts and directed year-by-year percentages, and on the weighted deduction it allowed the whole of the revenue expenditure for one year.
• Rameshchandra Balachand v JCIT (OSD) ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The officer says my partner is a sleeping partner because she is not in the office every day. Can he disallow her remuneration?
  No, on these facts — but the case is decided on a wider ground first. For five of the seven years the disallowance fell on jurisdiction: those years were unabated when the search took place, and a statement recorded under s.132(4) is not incriminating material capable of supporting an addition under s.153A. On the merits, taken in the alternative and carrying the remaining two years, the Tribunal held that not attending the office daily does not make a partner a sleeping partner where the work she did was proved, and noted that the remuneration was taxed in her hands under s.28(v). The disallowance was made under s.37 as expenditure not for the purposes of the business, not under s.40(b).
• Seo Lehenga House v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I have already offered the profit on the disputed transactions. Can the officer add the broker's commission on top under s.69C?
  Not where the commission is already inside the profit you offered. The Tribunal deleted a s.69C addition for cash commission paid to a broker for arranging bogus purchases and sales, in each of six consolidated appeals covering two assessees and five assessment years, because in every year the gross profit the assessee had already declared on those transactions exceeded the commission the Assessing Officer himself had determined. For the leading year the gross profit was Rs. 14,57,154 at 1.60 per cent against a determined commission of Rs. 5,31,795, and the Rs. 3,32,371 the first appellate authority had sustained was deleted. The rates differ year by year.
• ACIT v Nishant Kanodia ITATHelps taxpayer
  I left India to run my own business abroad, not for a job. Do I get the 182-day test?
  Yes. Explanation 1(a) to s.6(1) is not confined to salaried employment — leaving India to carry on business or a profession abroad falls within it. With a stay of 176 days in India, below 182, the assessee was a non-resident and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
• Finesse International Design v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The section 153D approval for my search assessment carries no DIN, even though the assessment order itself does. Does that invalidate the assessment?
  Yes, on this Tribunal's view. The Delhi Bench held that CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 requires a computer-generated DIN in the body of every departmental communication issued from 1 October 2019, and that a communication issued without one is invalid and deemed never to have been issued. The approval under section 153D dated 19 February 2021 carried no DIN. Because that approval is the fulcrum on which the final order rests, the Tribunal treated it as non est in law, and quashed the section 153A assessment and the section 156 demand notice built on it. It did not go into the merits.
• Jafferali K. Rattonsey v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  I held shares in physical form for years and dematerialised them just before selling. The AO says my holding period runs from the demat date. Is he right?
  No. The date of purchase is taken from the broker's note or contract note, and the period of holding runs from that date, not from the date of dematerialisation. The Assessing Officer had converted a long-term gain into a short-term one by treating the demat date as the date of acquisition and the market price on that date as cost; the Tribunal rejected both moves.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.