Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that there was no good reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two appellate authorities as regards the satisfaction arrived at by the Assessing Officer without there being any cogent or tangible material. In the documents seized during the course of search, there might be some reference to the assessee, but that itself would not be sufficient. It was necessary to show some nexus on the basis of some cogent materials between the documents seized and the assessee. Relied on Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014)367 ITR 112 (Delhi)(HC).( AY. 2010-11)
PCIT v. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (2019) 419 ITR 132 / 267 Taxman 305 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Satisfaction of AO of person in respect of whom search conducted that document seized belonged to some other person—Satisfaction not discernible from satisfaction note—Notice is held to be invalid. [S.132, 132(4A), 292C]