2021 (8) TMI 936 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material was found during the course of search or not? - HELD THAT - As held by the learned CIT A that for assessment year 2008 09 till assessment year 2011 12, no incriminating material was found during the course of search pertaining to these years , we also do not find any material referred in the assessment order, the learned CIT DR also could not show us any incriminating material for all these years, therefore as these are the concluded assessment years, which could have been disturbed only if there is any incriminating material found during the course of search, we also find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT V Kabul Chawla 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Therefore we uphold the order of the learned CIT A deleting all the additions for all these years. Addition of bogus purchases on protective basis in the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT - Substantive addition has been made in the hands of another entity to womb assessee has supplied material. The learned departmental representative could not show us any evidence that in the hands of the parties where substantive additions have been made what is the fate of the said addition is. Unless, it is brought over knowledge the fate of substantive addition in the hands of another entity, the addition in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. In view of this we set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer to 1st ascertain the fate of addition made on substantive basis in the hands of another entity. If the addition is sustained there on substantive basis, the addition on protective basis in the hands of this assessee deserves to be deleted. If the addition is not sustained in the hands of that assessee on its own merits, even then the protective addition cannot be sustained in the hands of this assessee. If, a finding is arrived in the case of the assessee in whose case substantive addition is made holding that bogus purchases booked by this assessee and not to that party and therefore no addition can be made in the hands of that party then, in that case the addition is required to be tested in the hands of this party is once again a fresh. Appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment under Section 153A without incriminating material.
2. Deletion of additions on account of bogus purchases.
3. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(4).
4. Disallowance of manufacturing expenses.
5. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Assessment under Section 153A without Incriminating Material:
The appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 were primarily contested on the grounds that the assessments under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, which held that completed assessments could not be interfered with under Section 153A unless incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that no incriminating material was found during the search for these years and, thus, the assessments could not be disturbed.

2. Deletion of Additions on Account of Bogus Purchases:
For the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, citing that the purchases were accepted as genuine in the original assessments under Section 143(3). The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the purchases were supported by confirmations, VAT numbers, and PAN details of the suppliers. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted similar purchases in other group entities' assessments.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the AO made a protective addition of ?424,341,000 for bogus purchases. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the suppliers were genuine and the transactions were recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO to ascertain the fate of the substantive addition made in the hands of another entity. If the substantive addition is sustained, the protective addition in the assessee's hands should be deleted.

3. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(4):
The CIT(A) allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(4) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, holding that the assessee's unit was engaged in manufacturing activities and had been allowed the deduction in previous years. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the deduction could not be disturbed as the assessee was already granted the deduction in earlier years.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(4), noting that the assessee's manufacturing activities were already established in previous years.

4. Disallowance of Manufacturing Expenses:
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances of manufacturing expenses for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, stating that the assessee maintained complete quantitative details and proper books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the manufacturing activities were genuine.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the AO disallowed manufacturing expenses of ?552,505, stating that the assessee was not engaged in any manufacturing activity. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities.

5. Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3):
The CIT(A) rejected the AO's decision to reject the books of accounts under Section 145(3) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, stating that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts and quantitative details. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s findings.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the AO's action under Section 145(3), noting that the assessee's books of accounts were properly maintained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of additions and disallowances. For the assessment year 2012-13, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of bogus purchases back to the AO for further examination.