2024 (11) TMI 1120 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Since seized documents in the instant case are not of incriminating nature, the AO is legally barred from framing assessment u/s 153C as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Abhishar Buildwell P. Ltd. 2023 (5) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT . Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in 2024 (8) TMI 1488 - MAHDYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . This appeal also stands dismissed in the light of this order and the decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the framing of assessments based on seized documents.
2. Determination of incriminating nature of seized financial documents and their relevance in assessments.
3. Validity of annulling an assessment under Section 143(3) and the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Scrutiny of assessment order under Section 143(3) and deletion of additions based on unsecured loans.
5. Assessment of findings by the ITAT and potential perversity in decision-making.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this appeal was the interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the framing of assessments based on seized documents. The appellant contested the ITAT's decision to annul the assessment under Section 143(3) and argued that the assessment should have been made under Section 153C. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Abhishar Buildwell P. Ltd. to support their argument that in the absence of incriminating material, the AO is legally barred from framing assessments under Section 153C.

2. Another significant issue raised was the determination of whether the seized financial documents were of an incriminating nature. The ITAT was questioned for holding that the mere financials of an entity seized during a search action constituted incriminating material. The appellant argued against this interpretation, emphasizing the lack of incriminating evidence in the seized documents.

3. The validity of annulling the assessment made under Section 143(3) and the subsequent deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer was also a crucial point of contention. The appellant challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,88,00,000 made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The appellant highlighted various legal arguments, including the jurisdictional requirement for assessments under Section 153C and the necessity of incriminating material for such assessments.

4. The issue of scrutiny of the assessment order under Section 143(3) and the deletion of additions based on unsecured loans was also raised. The ITAT's decision to quash the assessment order and delete the addition of Rs. 2,88,00,000 made on account of an unsecured loan from a specific company was challenged by the appellant. The appellant contended that the lender was a bogus company providing accommodation entries and that the loan was received in violation of the Companies Act 2013.

5. Lastly, the appellant questioned the findings of the ITAT, alleging perversity in decision-making. The appellant argued that the ITAT failed to consider relevant facts, misread evidence, and misinterpreted legal positions. The appellant cited the case of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees to support their argument that the ITAT's findings were erroneous.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal in line with a previous order dated 28/8/2024 in a similar case, emphasizing consistency in judicial decisions. The Court directed for the inclusion of the previous order in the present case record, thereby upholding the decision based on precedents and legal principles.

← Previous Next →