9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Revenue's ground. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions cannot be upheld. It is true that ITAT Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] held that in cases where assessments are not abated, the assessment u/s. 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material. However, this opinion that not upheld by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT [2012 (6) TMI 657 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] which was rendered on 15-12-2011 much before the order of the CIT(A). In fact, CIT(A) is bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court order. Not only the jurisdictional High Court, but also the Hon'ble Allahabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence filed by the Assessee in contravention of R.46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in following the decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) SB to hold that no addition can be made in the unabated assessments U/s. 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. 4. On the facts of the case, CIT(A) is not correct in relying on the decision of All Cargo Logistics Ltd., since in the present case no original assessment was completed U/s. 143(3). 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s. 153A and in response, Assessee filed returns of income by admitting NIL income. In the course of proceedings u/s. 153A, Assessing Officer (AO) in all the years examined the share application money and unsecured loans received and in the absence of details, the said amounts were brought to tax in respective assessment years. Thus, in all the impugned assessment years, the assessments were completed treating the unsecured loans, share application money received was treated as 'income'. 5. Apart from the above, another issue in AY. 2004-05 is with reference to unexplained investment in purchase of land on which an amount of ₹ 2,60,000/- was added but deleted by Ld.CIT(A). Revenue has raised Ground No.2 that CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 6 Lakhs till 4th August, 2003 and they have to receive a further sum of ₹ 6 Lakhs only. Company however, admitted income of ₹ 4 Lakhs presuming that previous promoters had paid the admitted sum of ₹ 4 Lakhs after the formation of company so that assessment can be closed and protracted legal proceedings can be avoided, even though said sum was not the income of the company. It was contended that agreement of sale was executed by the promoters before the formation of the company. Therefore, the above cannot be brought to tax in the hands of Assesseecompany. 5.2. Ld. CIT(A) accepting the above contentions, deleted the amount by stating as under: 5.3 Perused the observations of the assessing officer and the submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any additional evidence being taken/ admitted by the CIT(A), there is no merit in the Revenue's ground. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 6. That leaves us with the main additions of unsecured loans and share application money brought to tax by the AO in the assessments, consequent to non-furnishing of information by Assessee. Ld. CIT(A) on the objections raised by Assessee, deleted the same stating that additions cannot be made in the assessment without any reference to seized material. In coming to that decision, Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT [147 TTJ (SB) 513]. Revenue is objecting the same and raised the grounds accordingly in all the impugned three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the CIT(A). In fact, CIT(A) is bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court order. Not only the jurisdictional High Court, but also the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Courts (supra) have held that for completing the assessments u/s. 153A/153C, AO could take into consideration material other than what was available during the search and seizure operation. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the order of CIT(A) cannot be upheld. 9. It is one of the contentions of AO that Assessee has not furnished any information in the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, without going into the merits of the additions made, we are of the opinion that these issues should be re-examined by the AO by giving prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
