Bombay High Court

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)versusM/S. GOLDEN PEACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The appeals are dismissed as no substantial question of law is raised, and the ITAT's order is upheld.

Summary

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against the reassessment order upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against M/s Golden Peace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT had found that the seized pen drive and employee statements did not constitute incriminating material under section 153C, and therefore the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unwarranted. The High Court examined whether the ITAT’s order was sustainable given the Assessing Officer’s recorded satisfaction under section 153C and whether the Tribunal’s findings were perverse in ignoring the material evidence. After reviewing the facts, the Court noted that both the First Appellate Authority and the ITAT arrived at identical factual conclusions. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law was raised and dismissed the appeals, upholding the ITAT’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the ITAT's order is sustainable when the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
Whether the ITAT's findings are perverse in ignoring material evidence demonstrating proper recording of satisfaction under section 153C.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 153C, 260A

Subjects

Income Tax
reassessment
section 153C
ITAT
appeal
incriminating material
assessment officer

Judgment

                            14, 15 TXA 2 & 3 of 2025.docx



Meena


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                      TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2025
                               WITH
                      TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2025

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE- I (1)                                    …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S. GOLDEN PEACE INFRASTRUCTURE
PVT. LTD.                                                   ….RESPONDENT


Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Appellants.

Mr. Tanveer Singh with Ms. Amrita Dimri, Advocates for the
Respondent.

                     CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                 AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                     DATED :- 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:
1.       hese appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are iled
by the Revenue. he substantial questions of law which are pressed forth
seeking admission of these appeals are as follows:


        I. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the ITAT's Order is
        sustainable in law when the jurisdictional requirement of
        recording satisfaction by the Assessing Oicer stood duly
        complied with and the Assessing Oicer had validly assumed
        jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act upon

                                   Page 1 of 3
                              22nd September, 2026
                           14, 15 TXA 2 & 3 of 2025.docx




     recording the requisite satisfaction regarding the seized material
     belonging to the Respondent?


     II. Whether the indings of the ITAT are perverse in law in
     ignoring the material evidence demonstrating that the mandatory
     satisfaction under section 153C was properly recorded by the
     Assessing Oicer?


2.     We have perused the order of the Commission of Income Tax
(Appeals) dated 28.02.2024, and note that the First Appellate Authority
has given detailed indings on facts holding that the material sought to be
pressed as incriminating material against the Respondent cannot be
considered to be incriminating the Respondent in terms of Section
153(c) of the Act. he material sought to be held as incriminating were
a pen drive containing some accounts and two statements of purported
employees of the Respondent. he Appellate Authority on considering
the material before the Assessment Oicer has given a categorical inding
that the pen drive did not contain any incriminating material for the
purpose of concluding that the additions made by them was necessary; it
has given a further inding that, of the two employees one was admittedly
not an employee of the Respondent, while the other has not made any
statement that speciically incriminates the Respondent, the Assessee.


3.    he aforementioned indings on re-assessment have been
conirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. he Tribunal has
considered the provisions of Section 153C of the Act and its


                                  Page 2 of 3
                             22nd September, 2026
                                                     14, 15 TXA 2 & 3 of 2025.docx




                         requirements and after applying its provisions and considering the
                         indings of the First Appellate Authority has arrived at a concurrent
                         indings of fact.


                         4.      After considering the substantial questions of law proposed we are
                         of the opinion that there is in fact no substantial questions raised by the
                         Revenue, as concurrent indings of the fact by two Appellate Authorities
                         are same.


                         5.      Consequently, we dismiss these appeals.




                         AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J                                  VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                                            Page 3 of 3
                                                       22nd September, 2026
Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 23/09/2026 12:13:38

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…