Proceedings u/s 153A cannot be initiated in the Absence of Warrant Authorizing Search: ITAT Mumbai [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai bench, recently quashed the proceedings under sec. 153A on ground that no warrant were issued to the assessee in order to conduct a valid search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In the instant case, the petitioner impugned the notice issued under section 153A of the Income Tax Act on ground that no search under s. 132 was conducted. It is therefore contended that the Assessing Officer’s assumption of assessment jurisdiction by issue of notice under section 153A of the Act was invalid and therefore the consequent orders of assessment for the years under consideration are without authority of law. The Revenue on the other hand, failed to produce the copy of warrant authorizing search under s. 132 of the Act to establish that search were conducted on the premises of the assessee. The decision of the Gujarat high Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh D. Patel was cited in favour of the assessee.

“In our considered view, in the light of the factual matrix of the case as discussed from para 3.1 to 3.3.2, we record the finding that there was no warrant of authorisation issued to search the assessee’s premises on 24.02.2009 and Revenue was unable to produce the same, if any, to controvert our finding. This was specifically required in the light of the contradictory statements made by the AO in the order of assessment which led to the confusion of whether the assessee was subjected to search or not. In the absence of any warrant of authorisation to search the assessee’s premises under section 132 of the Act, on 24.02.2009, the AO had no jurisdiction to issue the notices under section 153A of the Act dated 05.10.2009 issued by him; thereby rendering them invalid and consequently the orders of assessment under section 153A of the Act for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 subsequent to the issue of those notices under section 153A of the Act could not have been passed and the same are also held to be void ab-initio and accordingly cancelled.”

Read the full text of the Judgment below.