9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] squarely apply where.has held that where no incriminating material was unearthed to show that there was violation by the assessee to disclose income/additions made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1397/DEL/2016, CO No. 175/DEL/2016 [A/o ITA No. 1397/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2006-07]] - - - Dated:- 9-12-2021 - SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. For the Department : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot only the jurisdiction but also duty to conduct relevant inquiries wherever required as held by the Hon ble Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II v. Jansampark Advertising Marketing (P.) Ltd [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286 (Delhi). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the remand proceedings notices/summons were issued to all 24 share applicants but in case of 17 persons these notices/summons came back unserved and despite that the above 17 persons filed their replies/confirmations which established the fact that the above transactions were not genuine. 5. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 3. The grievances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, the AO made addition of Rs.2.02 crores. 7. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has successfully discharge the onus cast upon it by provisions of Section 68 of the Act and deleted the addition. 8. A perusal of the assessment order shows that while making addition under section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not referred to any incriminating material/document found at the time of search which relates to the impugned addition. 9. This fact has also been accepted by the ld. CIT(A) who, at para 8.9 of his order, has observed The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any evidence, material or even any indication found in search and seizure operation regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax . iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material. v. In absence of any incriminating material, the complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
