2023 (10) TMI 554 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Addition made by the A.O. as devoid of any incriminating materials - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned assessment order shows that the addition made by the A.O. are devoid of any incriminating materials. DR has not contradicted the said facts. Thus, the ratio laid down by Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable to the case. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order treating the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C bad in law correctly. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2010-11.

Grounds of Appeal by Revenue:
1. Challenge to Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
2. Jurisdiction u/s 153C questioned.
3. CIT(A) not delving into case merits.

Grounds of Cross Objection by Assessee:
1. Revenue's failure to challenge findings on jurisdiction.
2. Disallowance of business loss.
3. Addition u/s 69 for unexplained investment.
4. Illegality of u/s 69 addition for recorded property.
5. Lack of incriminating material for u/s 69 addition.
6. Addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits.
7. Alleged illegal addition without inquiry.
8. Inspector's report not furnished to assessee.
9. Lack of show cause notice for adverse inferences.
10. Challenge to interest charges u/s 234A and 234B.

Case Summary:
A search operation u/s 132 led to seizure of documents related to the Assessee, followed by issuance of notice u/s 153C. Assessment order u/s 153C with additions was challenged by the Assessee before CIT(A), who quashed the order as bad in law. Revenue appealed, contesting CIT(A)'s decision. The Departmental Representative argued against CIT(A)'s order, while Assessee's Representative cited lack of incriminating material. The Tribunal found the additions devoid of incriminating evidence, in line with Supreme Court precedent. As CIT(A) had correctly quashed the assessment order, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the Assessee's Cross Objection became infructuous and was also dismissed.