9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 428 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - undisclosed income and undisclosed assets - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - We find ourselves in agreement with the above contention. Even revenue acknowledged this in the ground of appeal, wherein it is submitted this department has not accepted the order of CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD., ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and appeal has been preferred to Hon ble Supreme Court. We do not find this any reason to interfere with order of Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, we hold that Ld.CIT(A) is correct in holding that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A is bad in absence of any incriminating material found in search, as this is not a non abated assessment. As regards the merits, we find that since the issue on jurisdiction has been decided in favour of assessee, adjudication on merits is order only of academic interest. Hence, we are not engaging in the same. Revenue appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A for completed assessments. 2. Scope of assessment under Section 153A. 3. Incriminating material requirement for additions under Section 153A. 4. Deletion of additions under Section 68 and Section 69C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A for Completed Assessments: The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had the jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A in cases where the assessment was already completed and no incriminating material was found during the search. The learned CIT(A) held that the case for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 was an unabated assessment, meaning it was completed before the search, and no notice under Section 143(2) was issued within the prescribed time. Therefore, the AO could only make additions based on incriminating material found during the search. 2. Scope of Assessment under Section 153A: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) wrongly narrowed the scope of assessment under Section 153A, limiting it to only undisclosed income and assets detected during the search. The CIT(A) relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation, which clarified that for completed assessments, additions could only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that the AO could not disturb finalized assessments unless new incriminating evidence was found. 3. Incriminating Material Requirement for Additions under Section 153A: The CIT(A) observed that no incriminating material related to unsecured loans or interest payments was found during the search. The Panchanamas (search records) and the assessment order did not mention any incriminating documents. The AO made additions based on statements recorded post-search, which the CIT(A) ruled were not incriminating material. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that without incriminating material, the AO could not make additions in a completed assessment under Section 153A. 4. Deletion of Additions under Section 68 and Section 69C: The CIT(A) deleted the additions made under Section 68 (unsecured loans) and Section 69C (interest expenses) on the grounds that no incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A) also found that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee supported the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the issue of jurisdiction was decided in favor of the assessee, making the merits of the additions a matter of academic interest. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was invalid for completed assessments. Consequently, the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C were also deleted. The Tribunal relied on precedents from the Bombay High Court, which supported the view that finalized assessments could not be disturbed without new incriminating evidence.
|
