The recording by the Assessing Officer of the searched person that some documents seized during the search 'belong to' the other person is mandatory to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C. The failure by the Assessing Officer to record that the documents do not belong to the searched person will not vitiate the proceedings against the other person.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These fifteen writ petitions arise out of a similar set of facts concerning the notices issued to each of the Petitioners under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

2. Six of the writ petitions viz., W.P. (C) Nos. 2227, 2228, 525, 2229, 2246 and 527 of 2015 by Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'Ganpati') and six writ petitions viz., W.P. (C) Nos. 2247, 2221, 2248, 529, 2245 and 2220 of 2015 by Shushre Securities Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'Shushre') concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Three writ petitions viz., W.P. (C) Nos. 2224, 2225, 2226 by Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'Shrey') concern AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively.

Background facts in the Ganpati cases

3. The background facts in each set of petitions are more or less similar. On 26th March, 2010 a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act along with a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act were undertaken at various residential and business premises of Aseem Kumar Gupta and his associated Group including Raj Kumar Chawla and Anju Chawla. There were two search parties. Several documents and account books were seized from the premises of Aseem Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Chawla and Anju Chawla.

4. The case of Ganpati was with the Assessing Officer (AO) of Ward 12(1). On 25th November 2010 jurisdiction was transferred to the AO of Central Circle (CC)-16 who first issued a notice to Ganpati under Section 153C of the Act on 9th December 2010. The notice was received by Ganpati on 27th December 2010. At this stage no satisfaction note had been prepared.

5. On 21st January 2011, Ganpati requested that the return originally filed for AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10 under Section 139(1) be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 153C for the said AYs.

The Satisfaction Note

6. On 23rd June 2011, the jurisdiction in respect of Ganpati was again transferred from CC-16 to CC-9 under the orders of the CIT (C)-II. Thereafter on 14th October 2011, the following satisfaction note in the case of Ganpati was recorded by the AO:

“Satisfaction recorded u/s 153 C in the case of M/s. Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd.

A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 26.03.2010 at various premises of Aseem Kumar Gupta, his associates & other beneficiaries. During the search & seizure operations various documents, books of account, hard disks etc. were seized. On perusal of the seized documents, it was noticed that some of these documents belong to the assessee which inter alia include the following:

Page 13 and 14 of Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, are schedules attached to and forming part of the balance sheet and profit & loss account of the assessee as on 31-03-2008 and as on 31-03-2007.

Page 15 and 16, Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, are the profit & loss account and balance sheet of the assesse as on 31-03-2008 and as on 31-03-2007.

Page 21 to 25, of Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, are the Page 17 to 20, of Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, are the balance sheet and profit & loss account (and schedules attached thereto) of the assessee as on 31-03-2009 and as on 31-03-2008.

Page 21 to 25, of Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, are the unsigned Indemnity bond to be signed by outgoing director of the assessee company for transferring the shares of the assessee company.

Page 26, of Annexure A-I seized by party ABR-2, is the unsigned memorandum of understanding between outgoing directors of the assessee company, Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta and Sri Raj Kumar Chawla for transferring the assessee company.

In view of the above, and considering the fact that documents and books of accounts seized during the search belong to the assessee, I am satisfied that the assessee's case is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, action u/s 153 C of the Act is initiated for the As