9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 950 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Whether incriminating material seized in search? - HELD THAT - No addition is called for in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the search seizure operation conducted u/s. 132. Addition of interest income from HSBC Bank Account - On perusal of the record, we find that the amount of Rs. 16,23,822/- mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) be read as Rs. 12,22,265/- which was addition made by the AO on account of interest received as per para No. 3.4 of the Assessment Order. Not allowing the benefit of loss incurred by the assessee on sale of investment - With regard to loss incurred the matter is being referred to the file of the AO to determine the type of loss viz. speculative, non-speculative or business and allow the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Appeals of the assessee are allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. 2. Partial relief allowed by CIT(A) on various additions. 3. Correction of record for A.Y. 2006-07. 4. Verification and correction of loss incurred on sale of investment for A.Y. 2009-10. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material: The core issue across multiple assessment years (A.Y. 2006-07, A.Y. 2007-08, A.Y. 2008-09) was the validity of additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of incriminating material found during search and seizure operations. The tribunal referenced various judgments to adjudicate this matter: - E.N. Gopakumar Vs. CIT: The Kerala High Court held that additions could be made even without incriminating material. - CIT v. Kabul Chawla: The Delhi High Court stated that completed assessments could only be interfered with based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. - CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Arora: The Allahabad High Court supported the AO's power to reassess returns based on material available at the time of the original assessment. - PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia: The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition could be made for completed assessments. The tribunal concluded that following the Delhi High Court's view, no addition is warranted in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. 2. Partial relief allowed by CIT(A) on various additions: For different assessment years, the CIT(A) had allowed partial relief on additions made by the AO: - A.Y. 2006-07: Initial addition of Rs. 1,45,025/- was reduced to Rs. 80,265/-. The addition of Rs. 56,264/- was sustained. - A.Y. 2007-08: Initial addition of Rs. 3,65,031/- was reduced to Rs. 2,41,816/-. - A.Y. 2008-09: Initial addition of Rs. 6,69,754/- was reduced to Rs. 1,55,683/-. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessments had attained finality by the date of the search, and no additions could be made without incriminating material. 3. Correction of record for A.Y. 2006-07: The tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification and correction regarding the amount of Rs. 6,252/- or Rs. 62,521/- as mentioned in Ground No. 5. 4. Verification and correction of loss incurred on sale of investment for A.Y. 2009-10: For A.Y. 2009-10, the CIT(A) had deleted an addition of Rs. 12,22,265/- on account of interest income from HSBC Bank Account, noting that the interest-bearing deposits were converted into market-linked investments and no interest was earned during the year. The tribunal agreed with this finding but remanded the issue of a loss of Rs. 19,182/- incurred on the sale of investments back to the AO to determine the nature of the loss and allow it per the law. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that no additions were justified in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The tribunal also remanded specific issues back to the AO for verification and correction.
|
