Assessee Covered under “& Ors.” in Search Warrant despite Name Missing in Panchnama: ITAT Upholds S.153A Jurisdiction [Read Order]

The assessee, Neelkhanth Township Pvt. Ltd., had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring nil income. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on the Luv Kush Group, following which proceedings under Section 153A were initiated against the assessee on the ground that it formed part of the same group and was also covered during the course of search proceedings.

The case was subsequently centralized with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, New Delhi and notice under Section 153A was issued to the assessee on November 14, 2019.

During assessment proceedings, the assessee objected to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A contending that no search warrant had been issued in its name and that its name did not appear anywhere in the panchnama prepared during the search.

Before the ITAT, S.K. Tulsiyan and Bhoomija Verma appearing for the Assessee referred to the copy of the panchnama prepared during the search conducted on March 24, 2018 and argued that the warrant had been issued only in the name of “M/s Seetal Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” Since the assessee’s name was absent from the panchnama, it was contended proceedings initiated under Section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

\The assessee further argued that no incriminating material was found from its possession during the search, and that the disputed additions were made solely on the basis of statements recorded from third parties during post-search investigation proceedings.

Sumer Singh Meena appeared for the Revenue as CIT-DR and supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The ITAT Bench of Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal observed that the premises at New Delhi that was subject to search was also the assessee company’s registered office address.

The bench noted that although the assessee’s name was not specifically mentioned in the panchnama, the warrant had been issued in the name of “M/s Seetal Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”

Holding that the expression “& Ors.” could include the assessee company since the search was carried out at its registered office premises as well, the Tribunal upheld the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A and dismissed the assessee’s challenge to jurisdiction.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates