9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 45 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 69C - HELD THAT - The facts on record show that assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2015 and search was conducted on 08.07.2015. In our considered opinion, completed assessment can only be reopened in a search case when there is some incriminating material found during the course of search. Otherwise the ratio laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Meeta Gutgutia 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT squarely apply on the facts of the case in hand wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that completed assessment can be interfered with by the Assessing Officer while making assessment u/s 153A of the Act only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. - Decided against revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding completed assessment and incriminating material. Analysis: The appeal and cross objection were filed against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law by relying on the decision in the case of Kabul Chawla and holding that completed assessment could not be interfered with by the Assessing Officer without incriminating material. The facts revealed that search and seizure operations were conducted, and notices were issued to the assessee under Section 153A of the Act. The assessment was framed, and income was assessed after making additions under Section 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) analyzed the situation and concluded that no incriminating evidence was found during the search proceedings in the case of the appellant. The assessment order was solely based on the fact that the appellant made bogus purchases. Referring to the judgment in the case of Kabul Chawla, the CIT(A) emphasized that assessments under Section 153A must be made only on the basis of seized material. The CIT(A) held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable and should be deleted. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and held that completed assessment can only be reopened in a search case if there is incriminating material found during the search. Citing the judgments in the cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that assessments under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material discovered during the search. The cross objections of the assessee were not pressed and were dismissed accordingly. Consequently, both the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were dismissed. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the principle that assessments under Section 153A must be supported by incriminating material found during the search, as established in relevant judicial precedents, and ruled in favor of the assessee based on the absence of such material in the present case.
|
