9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1627 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Addition made qua unabated assessment - Whether where no assessment proceeding for the year under consideration is pending, in that eventuality, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure proceedings, whether the addition can be made qua unabated assessment for the said year? - HELD THAT - From the orders passed by the authorities below there is nothing to suggest as to what incriminating material has been found on dated 11.02.2016 during the search u/s 132(1) of the Act from the assessee's possession or premises, on the basis of which the additions have been made. As the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decisions of Kabul Chawla 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT and case of Smt. Sanjana Mittal 2019 (3) TMI 1757 - ITAT AMRITSAR wherein also the dictum laid down in Kabul Chawla case supra) has been followed, hence we are inclined to delete the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Whether addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material during search operation for an unabated assessment year. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana, under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. A search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee and other concerns of Bhagwati Group, leading to the discovery of discrepancies in fund raising and loans received by the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 42,55,000/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee challenged the addition, citing the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, and argued that no incriminating material was found during the search operation. 5. The Ld. DR argued that incriminating material is not necessary for making additions under section 153A, presenting various judgments contrary to the assessee's contention. 6. The main issue revolved around whether additions can be made for an unabated assessment year in the absence of incriminating material found during the search operation. 7. Several judgments were cited by both parties to support their arguments, with conflicting decisions from different High Courts. 8. The Tribunal referred to the principle that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, citing the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. 9. Relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that if assessment proceedings were completed before the search operation and no incriminating material was found, no addition can be made to the assessed income. 10. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the Ld. CIT DR and emphasized the importance of incriminating material for making additions. 11. As the issue was settled by previous judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench at Amritsar, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 12. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, conflicting decisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning in resolving the issue at hand.
|
