9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 692 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - It is found that there is no adverse incriminating material/document found in the premises of the searched person based on which the addition was made in this case. We are therefore, of the considered view that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singhad Technical Education Society 2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT and the decisions of RRJ Securities Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT and AR Infra India Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 1194 - DELHI HIGH COURT are applicable here in the present case. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and thus, we decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Whether the documents relied upon by the AO in the assessment leading to the addition of unsecured loans from bogus/shell companies are incriminating in nature and if the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law on facts. Whether the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/- deleted by the CIT(A) is justified. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/- towards unsecured loans from bogus/shell companies by the AO, which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A). The primary issue was whether the documents relied upon by the AO were incriminating in nature. The CIT(A) held that the additions made by the AO were not based on seized material noted in the satisfaction notes under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) emphasized that incriminating documents must pertain to the assessment year in question for additions to be valid. The CIT(A) referred to legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Index Securities (P) Ltd., to support the conclusion that the seized documents were not incriminating for the assessee in the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) also cited other relevant cases to strengthen the argument that the additions were not based on material received by the AO as detailed in the satisfaction note. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. CIT-DR, contested the CIT(A)'s decision and sought to uphold the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/-. However, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that there was no incriminating material against the assessee justifying the addition. The Ld. Counsel highlighted that the CIT(A) had provided a factual finding that was not challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the record, concluded that there was no adverse incriminating material found during the search that could support the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents, including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, to support its decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and declined to interfere with it. Additionally, the issue raised by the Ld. Counsel, regarding the CIT(A) failing to adjudicate the case on merit, was not raised through specific procedures like Cross Objection or Cross Appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not address this issue, deeming it academic in nature. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/-.
|
