9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 813 - HC - Income TaxAssessment under Section 153A - Held that - On perusal of Section 153A of the Act it is manifest that it does not make any distinction between assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A of the Act in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa and in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation & Anr.(2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). It has been observed that Section 153A cannot be a tool to have a second inning of assessment either to the Revenue or the Assessee. It has been observed that Section 153A cannot be a tool to have a second inning of assessment either to the Revenue or the Assessee. Even in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra) the assessment was under Section 143(1) of the Act and the Court held that the scope of assessment after search under Section 153A would be limited to the incriminating evidence found during the search and no further. In the said Judgment the Judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation & Anr. (referred to supra) has been followed.
Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order allowing Assessee's appeal for Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 - Scope of Assessment under Section 153A of the Act - Addition made on account of unaccounted sundry creditors and unexplained share of money - Limiting assessment to incriminating material discovered in search - Distinction between Sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act - Applicability of Judgments in similar cases - Interpretation of Section 153A of the Act - Second inning of assessment - Conclusive nature of previous Court judgments. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision allowing the Assessee's appeal for the Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition made on account of unaccounted sundry creditors and unexplained share of money, limiting the assessment under Section 153A of the Act to incriminating material discovered in the search only. The counsel for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's reliance on judgments limiting the scope of inquiry under Section 153A to the discovery of incriminating material during the search was improper, especially considering the distinction between assessments under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act. The counsel emphasized that while Section 143(3) involves a detailed inquiry and examination of evidence, Section 143(1) is limited to the return filed, making the Tribunal's approach inapplicable in the present case. 2. On the other hand, the Senior Advocate for the respondent supported the Tribunal's order, stating that assessments under Section 153A of the Act should be confined to any incriminating evidence found during the search. Referring to previous Court judgments, the respondent's counsel argued that the assessment scope under Section 153A should not extend beyond the incriminating material discovered during the search. 3. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed Section 153A of the Act. The Court noted that there is no distinction made in Section 153A between assessments conducted under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that Section 153A should not be used as a tool for a second round of assessment for either the Revenue or the Assessee. The Court referred to specific cases where it was held that the assessment scope under Section 153A is limited to the incriminating evidence found during the search and cannot go beyond that. 4. Relying on authoritative pronouncements of the Court in previous cases, including those related to assessments under Section 143(1), the Court concluded that the issue at hand has already been settled by previous judgments. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Appeals as they lacked any substantial question of law, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
|
