9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12. It was common ground between both the parties that the issue involved in both the appeals was identical. Therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue in both the appeals is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings, conducted pursuant to search carried out at the premises of the assessee, merely for the reason that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. While the addition made in assessment year 200708 pertains to unexplained cash credits with respect to share capital amounting to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have been made. 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee placed copy of order passed by the I.T.A.T., Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Bharatnet Technology Ltd. in ITA Nos.983 & 984/Chd/2017 dated 13.11.2017 and stated that the present appeals were squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal also wherein identical grounds had been raised by the Revenue in its appeal. Besides, the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) had rightly deleted the additions made following the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Mala Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) since clearly, the additions in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) has been distinguished in the case of Smt.Dayawanti Vs. CIT inn ITA No.357/2015 & Others dated 27.10.2016, since we find that even this aspect has been dealt with by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Bharatnet Technology Ltd. (supra) in which it was observed that the case of Smt.Dayawanti (supra) was subsequently discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns 'N' Petals in ITA No.306/2017 & Other decision vide order dated 25.5.2017, wherein it was held that in the case of Smt.Dayawanti (supra) incriminating material was found during search action, however, in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns 'N' Petals no incriminating m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
