Assessment under the Income Tax Act requires corroborative evidence alongside statements made during search; solely relying on statements recorded under Section 132(4) is insufficient to support tax additions.

ORDER

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeal by assessee are directed against the common order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 dated 31.12.2023. Certain issues in these appeals are common in nature, hence, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. First, we will take the common ground in these appeals with regard to limitation of passing assessment orders. In these cases, there was search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.9.2017 in the case of Sri V.G. Siddartha, Coffee Day Enterprises, Ltd. at 7^th Floor, No.23/2, Coffee Day Square, Vithal Malya Road, Bangalore 560 001 on 21.9.2017. Consequent to above search action, assessee’s place was also searched and notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee and the present assessment has been framed in these cases u/s 153C of the Act.

3. The contention of the ld. A.R. in ITA No.373 to 376/Bang/2024 is that assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation as it was served on 1.1.2020 to the assessee and time limit so available to the assessee was only up to 31.12.2019. We find no force in the argument of assessee’s counsel. In this case, assessment order was passed on 29.12.2019 and dispatched to the assessee u/s 153(1) of the Act on 31.12.2019. As such, it cannot be said that assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act after 31.12.2019 so as to hold it as barred by limitation. Being so, we find no merit in the argument of assessee’s counsel. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

4. Next common ground in all these appeals in ITA Nos.373 to 376/Bang/2024 is that the search action was conducted in the premises of assessee on the basis of warrant issued in the name of Coffee Day Group and consequent to seizure of document at assessee’s place notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued. As such the ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that search conducted in the case of assessee is bad in law.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As per explanation inserted to section 132 of the Act by Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962, the assessee cannot question the legality of the search before this Tribunal. This view if also fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pratibha Jewellery House Vs. CIT 88 taxmann.com 94 (Karn.). Accordingly, this ground of assessee is dismissed in all appeals.

6. Next common ground in all these appeals in ITA Nos.373 to 376/Bang/2024 is with regard to framing of assessment u/s 153C of the Act as the condition precedent to issue notice u/s 153C of the Act is not satisfied.

6.1 According to the ld. A.R., there was search action conducted in the premises of the assessee on the strength of warrant of authorization issued in the name of Coffee Day Group. The seizure of document at the premises of the assessee was resulted in issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act and that cannot be reason to issue notice u/s 153C of the Act since the search in the case of assessee itself, assessment should be framed u/s 153A of the Act.

7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, search warrant was issued in the name of Coffee Day Group and not in the name of assessee. The said warrant of authorization issued in the name of Coffee Day Group was also covered the premise of the assesse