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 there is no substantial question of law and the ITAT's order is upheld.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Goa examined two tax appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order confirming the assessment of M/s Golden Peace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had validly recorded satisfaction under section 153C after seizing a pen drive and employee statements, thereby acquiring jurisdiction to make additions. The Tribunal held that the seized pen drive contained no incriminating material and that the employee statements did not specifically incriminate the assessee, so the additions were unwarranted. The Court considered whether the ITAT’s order was sustainable in law and whether its findings were perverse in ignoring the recorded satisfaction. Finding that the factual findings of the First Appellate Authority and the ITAT were identical and that no substantial question of law was raised, the Court dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the ITAT's order is sustainable in law when the jurisdictional requirement of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer under section 153C was duly complied with.
Whether the findings of the ITAT are perverse in law for ignoring material evidence that the mandatory satisfaction under section 153C was properly recorded.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 153(c), 153C, 260A

Subjects

tax appeal
Section 153C
assessing officer jurisdiction
income tax
ITAT
material evidence
appeal dismissed

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 12:14:00

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…