9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 413 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153A - incriminating document as seized, during the course of search proceedings or not? - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - In view of consideration of the judgement of Kabul Chawla 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT it has been held that completed assessments can be interfered with by the A.O. while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meeta Gutgutia 2018 (7) TMI 569 - SC ORDER , upheld the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The aforesaid judgments have lucidly pronounced that the case of completed assessment can be interfered only on the basis of some incriminating material found during the course of search. The case of the assessee for the assessment years before us are completed assessments and there were no proceedings pending on the date of the search conducted i.e. 20.04.2017. In the case of the assessee, the AO has not referred to any incriminating document which was seized, during the course of search proceedings and the additions made in the Assessment Orders are not based upon any incriminating material or documents found during the course of search Further, we also find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT has affirmed the ratio of the Hon ble Delhi High Court laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Since, the revenue has not brought anything on record to prove that the additions have been made on the basis of the material found and seized during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition due to disallowance of expenses. 2. Deletion of addition on account of advances from customers. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credit. 4. Admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Due to Disallowance of Expenses The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,47,472 out of the total disallowance of Rs. 26,55,351, which represented 10% of the expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to produce necessary bills/vouchers and books of accounts for verification despite numerous opportunities. The Revenue maintained that it is a common practice for businesses to inflate expenses to reduce profit, thus the onus was on the assessee to furnish the corresponding bills/vouchers and produce its books of accounts for verification of the genuineness of the claimed expenses. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Advances from Customers The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,93,500 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of advances from customers. The Revenue emphasized that the assessee failed to furnish confirmations from customers, their ledger accounts, or any necessary documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the advances shown in the books. The claims of the assessee without documentary evidence were deemed unacceptable by the Revenue. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,40,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained cash credit regarding unsecured loans. The assessee failed to furnish confirmations from lenders, their ledger accounts, or any necessary documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the advances shown in the books. The Revenue argued that the claims of the assessee without documentary evidence were rightly added by the AO. 4. Admission of Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish any reply to the queries during the course of assessment proceedings despite numerous opportunities. Judgment Analysis: Applicable Provisions and Legal Precedents The Tribunal noted that the assessment year in question was 2010-11, with the search conducted on 12.11.2013. The provisions of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were deemed applicable. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Kabul Chawla and Pr. CIT vs Meeta Gutgutia, which held that completed assessments could only be interfered with based on incriminating material found during the course of the search. Findings The Tribunal found that the AO did not refer to any incriminating document seized during the search proceedings. The additions made in the Assessment Orders were not based on any incriminating material or documents found during the course of the search. The Tribunal also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which affirmed the ratio laid down in Kabul Chawla. Conclusion Since the Revenue failed to prove that the additions were made based on material found and seized during the search, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. Order The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 15/03/2024.
|
