RKDF Education Society vs ACIT: ITAT Indore on Section 153A Search Assessment Scope

This case examines a foundational question in search-assessment litigation: whether additions framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can stand when the purported incriminating material was not seized from the assessee's own premises but from a third party, and when no assessment was pending on the date of the search. The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided a batch of cross-appeals involving RKDF Education Society and Ayushmati Educational & Social Society for assessment years spanning 2004-05 to 2010-11, making it a significant reference point for taxpayers and practitioners navigating the boundaries of Section 153A.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: M/S Rkdf Education Society, Bhopal vs The ACIT-2(1), Bhopal
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
• Date: 28 July 2021
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 153A, 292C, 153C
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

RKDF Education Society, a society registered at 202, Ganga Jamuna Complex, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AATR1026R), was subjected to search assessments framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment orders, all dated 16 May 2014, were passed by ACIT-2(1), Bhopal and covered assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 to 2009-10. A second entity, Ayushmati Educational & Social Society (PAN: AAAAA3026D), was similarly assessed for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11. Both entities share the same registered address. The assessees appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bhopal, whose orders dated 31 March 2019 and 25 March 2019 partially sustained certain additions. Both assessees and the Revenue (ACIT, Exemption, Bhopal) thereafter filed cross-appeals before ITAT Indore, resulting in the consolidated batch of IT(SS)A Nos. 69 to 76 and 126 to 130/Ind/2019.

The additions disputed across the assessment years were of two broad types. First, for AY 2004-05, an addition of Rs 15,00,000 was sustained as alleged unexplained expenditure, based on a paper seized from the residence of one S.N. Sharma — not from the appellant's own premises. Second, for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 (and apparently other years in the batch), additions representing 40% disallowance of purchases of CBT Bars from M/s Saluja Enterprises and M/s Prateek Enterprises were sustained. These disallowances rested on pre-search affidavits submitted by Sunil Khandewal and Narendra Sharma in the search case of the Bharat Kothari Group. The assessees contended that neither Sunil Khandewal nor Narendra Sharma were key persons of M/s Saluja Enterprises and M/s Prateek Enterprises respectively, and that those affidavits made no mention of the appellant society.

The assessees consistently maintained before the CIT(A), and then before the Tribunal, that the purchases of CBT Bars were duly recorded in their books of account and were supported by ledger accounts, bank statements, purchase bills, weighing slips, certificates from contractors and sub-contractors, and purchase orders — all placed on record before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Despite this, the CIT(A) sustained additions at 40% of the disputed purchase amounts, a figure the assessees further characterised as arbitrary and excessive.

---

Issues raised

• Whether additions under Section 153A can be sustained in the absence of incriminating material seized from the assessee's own premises during the course of search.
• Whether, where the assessment for a particular year was not pending on the date of the search, an addition under Section 153A is within jurisdiction — or whether it falls outside the scope of that provision entirely.
• Whether material seized from a third party's premises (here, documents and affidavits recovered in the search of the Bharat Kothari Group and from the residence of S.N. Sharma) can form the basis of an addition under Section 153A, or whether Section 153C is the only applicable provision for such third-party material.
• Whether the presumption under Section 292C can be applied against the appellant society in respect of documents seized from third-party premises rather than from the appellant's own premises.
• Whether sustaining additions based on affidavits obtained behind the back of the assessee, without affording an opportunity for cross-examination of the deponents, constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice.

---

What the court held

The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal, per the order of Accountant Member Manish Borad (with Judicial Member Madhumita Roy), ruled in favour of RKDF Education Society (and, on the corresponding cross-appeals in the batch, against the Revenue's position). The dispositive direction, as reflected across the grounds and the Tribunal's treatment of them, is that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were not supportable.

The central reasoning that ran through every assessment year under challenge was the settled principle — repeatedly articulated in the grounds and accepted by the Tribunal — that under Section 153A, an addition can only be made on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the course of search from the assessee's own premises, and which was neither produced nor already disclosed in the course of original assessment. Where no such material was found at the assessee's premises, and where the assessment for the relevant year was not pending on the date of search, the jurisdictional foundation for an addition under Section 153A is absent. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's position that material recovered from the premises of third parties — the affidavits gathered in the search of the Bharat Kothari Group, and the paper found at S.N. Sharma's residence — could not constitute incriminating material against the appellant for the purpose of Section 153A. The correct provision for proceeding on third-party material, per the grounds accepted by the Tribunal, is Section 153C, not Section 153A.

On the Section 292C ground, the Tribunal held that the statutory presumption as to documents found during search does not extend to documents seized from third-party premises; it cannot be invoked against an assessee in whose premises those documents were not found. Additionally, the Tribunal found merit in the natural justice ground: additions premised on affidavits obtained in a third party's search proceedings, deployed against the assessee without opportunity for cross-examination of the deponents, were made in breach of the principles of natural justice.

---

Strategy observations

1. The appeals were structured around a primary jurisdictional objection — that no incriminating material was seized from the appellant's premises and that the relevant assessments were not pending on the date of search — before any quantum argument was advanced. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals substantially on this jurisdictional ground, making the quantum challenge (the 40% disallowance rate being arbitrary) a secondary or alternative position per the source.

2. An additional ground was raised — and accepted — that where additions are sought to be based on material found at a third party's premises, the applicable provision is Section 153C and not Section 153A. This provision-specific demarcation argument proved decisive across multiple assessment years in the batch.

3. The assessees placed on record extensive documentary corroboration for the disputed purchases — ledger accounts, bank statements, purchase bills, weighing slips, contractor and sub-contractor certificates, and purchase orders — to demonstrate that the transactions were duly recorded and disclosed, reinforcing the argument that no "undisclosed" incriminating material had surfaced during the search.

4. A natural justice ground based on denial of cross-examination of affidavit deponents (Sunil Khandewal and Narendra Sharma) was maintained as an independent basis for deletion. The source records this ground as having been raised and accepted, providing a separately sustainable basis for relief in addition to the jurisdictional ground.

5. The batch structure — covering both assessee-appeals and Revenue cross-appeals across multiple entities and assessment years — meant that the Tribunal's ruling on the core Section 153A scope principle applied consistently across all years and both societies, amplifying the precedential footprint of the decision within this litigation.

---

Why this case matters

The ruling is a concrete application of the principle that Section 153A search assessments are not a free-standing license to reopen concluded assessments without basis. The restriction — that additions must be grounded in incriminating material actually seized from the assessee's premises, and are unavailable where no assessment was pending on the date of search — has been a recurring point of litigation before ITATs across the country. This order from ITAT Indore, spanning seven assessment years across two societies, reinforces that demarcation and adds to the body of tribunal authority holding that third-party seized material cannot be treated as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee under Section 153A.

The case also sharpens the Section 153A / Section 153C boundary in a practically significant way: the Tribunal affirmed that if the Revenue wishes to act on documents found at a third party's premises, it must satisfy the conditions and follow the procedure mandated by Section 153C, rather than folding that material into a Section 153A addition. For in-house counsel and practitioners advising clients who have received Section 153A notices following searches of group entities or business associates, this order is a useful reference for both the jurisdictional objection and the natural justice ground based on denial of cross-examination.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77884532/