9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 312 - AT - Income TaxAssessment order u/s 153A/143(3) - addition u/s 68 - Held that - The instant appeal it is undisputed that the impugned additions were made by the Assessing Officer without there being any finding that the additions related to any seized material. There is no iota of any reference to any incriminating material in the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) and therefore following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT Central-III vs Kabul Chawla (2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT), we allow the CO of the assessee and quash the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/153A. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment under section 153A for assessment year 2004-05. 2. Treatment of unexplained credit from certain entities as share application money. 3. Appeal by the Department against deletion of addition by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Cross-objection (CO) by the assessee challenging the initiation and validity of assessment under section 153A. Issue 1: Validity of assessment under section 153A for assessment year 2004-05: The Department appealed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2004-05 under section 153A, following a search and seizure action on the assessee's premises. The AO found unexplained share capital/share application money from various entities, leading to additions in the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment under section 153A but deleted the addition based on lack of incriminating documents. The Department challenged the deletion, arguing that the share applicants' creditworthiness and transaction genuineness were not proven. However, the Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the addition, as per the decision in CIT Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla. The Tribunal ruled that section 153A does not allow de novo assessments for completed assessments, and since no material was found during the search, the addition was rightly deleted. Issue 2: Treatment of unexplained credit from certain entities as share application money: During the section 153A proceedings, the AO found unexplained credit of ?50,00,000 from three entities who did not comply with notices issued under section 131. The AO treated this amount as unexplained credit and added it to the assessee's income. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition, citing lack of incriminating material and procedural irregularities. The Department challenged this deletion, arguing that the share applicants' creditworthiness and transaction genuineness were not established. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion, emphasizing that without incriminating material, the addition was not justified. Issue 3: Appeal by the Department against deletion of addition by Ld. CIT(A): The Department raised grounds for appeal against the deletion of the addition of ?50,00,000 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Department contended that the deletion ignored the lack of proof regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of incriminating material to support the addition. Issue 4: Cross-objection (CO) by the assessee challenging the initiation and validity of assessment under section 153A: The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the initiation and validity of the assessment under section 153A. The CO raised concerns about the absence of incriminating material related to the assessee during the search, questioning the validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal addressed the CO before the Department's appeal, highlighting the legal issue raised by the assessee as crucial to the entire assessment proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the CO, quashing the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/153A based on the absence of any findings related to seized material. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, emphasizing the importance of incriminating material in assessments under section 153A. The decision was based on the principles outlined in the CIT Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla case, ensuring assessments are grounded in seized material to prevent arbitrary additions.
|
