2023 (10) TMI 705 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Addition u/s 68 - incriminating material found or not? - CIT(A) had deleted the additions made both on protective and substantive basis also affirmed by ITAT - HELD THAT - As decided in Jay Fe Cylinder Ltd. 2022 (9) TMI 1330 - DELHI HIGH COURT no incriminating material was found qua the investment companies vis- -vis which search was conducted by the appellant/revenue. Thus the appeal of the appellant/revenue need to be dismissed according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), Substantive and protective basis for additions, Lack of material to controvert CIT(A)'s findings, Reference to previous court order in similar case.

Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal:
The appellant/revenue sought condonation of a 120-day delay in re-filing the appeals, which was allowed by the court based on the nature of delay and reasons provided in the applications.

Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and AY 2012-13:
The appeals pertained to AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, challenging a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's order also covered AY 2013-14, and it was noted that a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to additions under Section 68 of the Act.

Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 for both AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13. The additions were made on protective and substantive bases, with specific amounts mentioned for each year.

Findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)):
The CIT(A) found that the transactions involving investments in companies related to the J.P. Minda Group were genuine. No collateral payments were made, and no cash was deposited for investment purposes, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Substantive and protective basis for additions:
Additions were made on both protective and substantive bases for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, with specific amounts detailed in the judgment.

Lack of material to controvert CIT(A)'s findings:
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the appellant/revenue failed to provide any material to challenge the CIT(A)'s conclusions regarding the genuineness of the transactions.

Reference to previous court order in similar case:
The court referred to a previous order in a related case where no incriminating material was found regarding investment companies, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Based on this and the findings of the CIT(A) and Tribunal, no substantial question of law was found to arise, resulting in the closure of the appeals.