The assessment under Section 153C is invalid if the assessing officer does not record requisite satisfaction about the ownership of seized materials.

JUDGMENT

Heard Adv. Kuryan Thomas learned Counsel for the appellant and Adv. Navaneeth N. Nath holding for Senior Counsel P.K.Ravindranatha Menon for the respondent.

2. Mohammed Sherief/assessee is the appellant and Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi/Revenue is the respondent in the subject tax appeals. Identical questions of law and similar circumstances are present for consideration in the batch of appeals, hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The details of block assessment orders, years of assessment, and orders of the Authorities under the Act are stated as under:

3. The counsel appearing for the parties have referred to the circumstances set out in ITA No.2/2019 and have stated that the consideration of the circumstances leading to the assessment orders, orders made thereon, and answering the substantial questions of law in the appeal would apply to other appeals as well.

4. The assessee is a resident of Karunagapally and engaged in the business of sale of vegetables. One E. Shamsudeen is the father of the assessee. On 02.08.2006, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at the business premises of E. Shamsudeen was carried out by the Revenue. It is a matter of record that on 02.08.2006, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was undertaken at the business premises of the assessee. A few documents, the details of which are not necessary for our present purpose, were seized from the business premises of the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax served notice under Section 153C read with 153A of the Act on the assessee calling upon the assessee to prepare and file a true and correct return including the undisclosed income which is assessable to tax in the financial year ending on 31.03.2003. It is relevant to note that the notice dated 14.05.2007 refers to the search conducted at the business premises of E.Shamsudeen at Edappallykotta on 02.08.2006. Similar notices were issued, for the block assessment period 2004-05 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer through Annexure- B order dated 30.12.2008, determined the tax and interest payable by the assessee as Rs.3,62,307/-. The assessee during the pendency of the appeal raised a ground on the statutory requirement of recording satisfaction for proceeding under Section 153C read with 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer through Annexure-C communication dated 30.11.2010 placed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the satisfaction said to have been recorded by the Assessing Officer. At a later stage of our discussion, we would excerpt the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is unsuccessful before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals), resulting in Annexure- D order dated 31.06.2016. The assessee filed the second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through Annexure-F order 30.01.2018, dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal under Section 260A of the Act.

5. Adv. Kuryan Thomas made comprehensive submissions on the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the assessment under Section 153C of the Act, more so when the "satisfaction" of the assessing authority who conducted the search, that the seized materials belongs to