9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular assessment year, at the same time when there is no incriminating material found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers u/s 153A and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. This legal preposition is now settled in the batch of cases namely PCIT, Central-3 -Vs- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT ] holding that in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition made u/s 132A of the Act. We have no hesitation in deleting the additions made on account of unexplained cash credit made by the AO without any incriminating material found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Since the additions made on the quantum appeals for the above assessment years are already deleted vide paragraphs 10 and 11 of this order, consequently the present penalty appeals has no legs to stand and therefore the penalty levied is hereby deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the non- communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 326 days and Penalty appeals with a delay of 1 day. The assessee further stated he paid the appropriate appeal fees on 11.01.2019 itself, however filed the appeal on 06.03.2019 because of the misguidance of the former Tax Consultant. It is thereafter, the assessee engaged the present Counsel to handle the above quantum appeals along with the penalty appeals. Thus the assessee expressed the genuine hardship and prayed to condone the delay and with direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeals on merits of the case. 4. Per contra Ld. CIT-DR Shri Kamlesh Makwana appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the assessee has not filed the Affidavit of the former Tax Consultant as supporting document to condone the substantial delay of 326 days. Ld. CIT-DR further relied on Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Royal Stitches Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras) and Jaipur Bench ITAT decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2020) 121 taxmann.com 384 (Jaipur-Trib.) and strongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des is attributed to the party. In the present case, the petitioner/appellant has not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning the huge delay of 1072 days in filing the appeals. 6.2. In our considered view, the assessee has demonstrated a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the statutory period of limitation, on the mis-representation of former Tax Consultant resulting in passing exparte orders and filing appeals with delay. 6.3. Ld. CIT-DR s next plea of former Tax Consultant supporting affidavit is not filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. Such a situation was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jayvantsinh N. Vaghela (cited supra) and held as follows: 3. .Considering the affidavits filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which are even reproduced by the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not condoning the delay and not considering the appeals on merits. It is required to be noted that there is no observation by the learned Tribunal that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the assessee and/or there was any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are satisfied with the reasonable cause as explained above and we hereby condone the delay in filing the above appeals and take up the appeals on merits of the case. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Aseem L. Thakkar submitted that the only additions made in all these assessments are unexplained cash credits of Rs. 7,50,000/-, Rs. 10,41,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- for the respective Asst Years 2009-10, 2010-11 2013-14. It is clearly seen from the assessment orders, pursuant to the search, there is no seized material from the premises of the assessee, but only on verification of capital account, the AO noticed that the assessee has introduced the above sums in its capital account, which were received as gift from his Paternal uncles. The assessee during the assessment proceedings clearly explained the source of gifts and also identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the absence of any seized material and unabated assessments, the entire addition made by the AO is against the well settled principle of law by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. which is confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment- Held, yes - Whether in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A and that all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated - Held, yes - Whether in respect of completed assessments/ unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A - Held, yes - Whether, however, completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147/148 subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged/mentioned under section 147/148 and those powers are saved - Held, yes 10.1. The Hon ble Supreme Court in this case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. considered Judgements of various High Courts and concurred with one of the Judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction and laid down the following points in a nutshell : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
