9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 129 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Section 153A proceedings - Held that - Assessing Officer had framed two regular assessments well before the search in question not leading to any incriminating material. We thus follow hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision in PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 911 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT holding that the impugned proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act are not sustainable in absence of any incriminating material or evidence found/seized during the course of search - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 153A proceedings. 2. Treatment of capital gains as business income. 3. Requirement of incriminating material for reassessment under Section 153A. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 153A Proceedings: The assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The argument was based on the fact that no assessment proceedings were pending for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 when the search was conducted on 09.08.2011. The Assessing Officer had already framed regular assessments on 31.12.2008 and 31.12.2010, respectively. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's action without finding any incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal referenced the Special Bench of ITAT in All Cargo Global Logistics and further approved in Kabul Chawla, stating that in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer could only reiterate the total income as previously determined. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 153A were deemed invalid. 2. Treatment of Capital Gains as Business Income: The Assessing Officer treated the capital gains disclosed by the assessee as business income, based on several factors: - Multiplicity of transactions in land/properties. - Development agreements entered into before sale. - Improvement of land before sale. - Use of borrowed funds for purchasing land. The CIT(A) upheld this treatment but clarified that the upholding was not on merit but merely a reiteration of the total income as determined by the Hon. ITAT for the relevant year. For A.Y. 2006-07, the issue had already been decided against the assessee by the ITAT, and the appeal was pending before the High Court. For A.Y. 2008-09, the CIT(A) noted that the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) before the search, and the appeal against it was decided by the predecessor, with no incriminating material found during the search to support the addition on merit. 3. Requirement of Incriminating Material for Reassessment under Section 153A: The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, the reassessment under Section 153A is not sustainable. This was supported by the case law, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had framed regular assessments before the search, and no incriminating material was found. Hence, the realignment of income from capital gains to business income without any incriminating material was beyond the scope of Section 153A. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act for both assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09, as they were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed accordingly. [Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2018]
|
