9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned separate appeals by the assessee in the case of Admach Auto India Limited are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 29 New Delhi pertaining to Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. The common challenge in the captioned appeals of both the assessees relates to the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. The underlying facts in the issues are common and identical in the captioned appeals. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Briefly stated, the underlying common fact is that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below. The common facts resulting into the impugned additions have been explained hereinabove. It would be pertinent to refer to the impugned assessment order. It can be seen that the impugned assessment orders are framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. 10. As mentioned elsewhere, the basis of assessments are alleged incriminating material found from Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal, which incriminating material/information may have belonged to the appellants and its group companies. In our considered opinion, in such a situation, the Legislature has provided section 153C in the Statute to frame the assessment. If the Assessing Officer frames the assessment without resorting to the dedicated section provided by the legislature, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction over such person. Here, the assessment has been framed under section 153A on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act). As noted above, the Assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed. On this count alone, we find no perversity in the view taken by the ITAT. Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law that requires our consideration." 13. Facts being identical, basis of addition are also similar and the assessees considered by the Hon'ble High Court are members of same group. Therefore, respectfully following the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 19. As explained hereinabove, first the Assessing Officer proceeded by treating the entries as unexplained expenditure and sought explanation from the assessee. Then the Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee has made investments and sought clarification from the assessee, and without any further ado, he made the addition as accommodation entries received by the assessee. 20. The conduct of the Assessing Officer is not only uncertain but full of jigsaw puzzles. As no concrete evidence has been brought on record to justify the addition, we have no hesitation in deleting the same. Accordingly, the captioned assessment orders are quashed following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
