9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fact an circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards unexplained investment in M/s Anjanay Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. by admitting additional evidences without recording proper reasons and without providing reasonable opportunity to the A.O. to examine such evidences in contravention of Rule 46A of the 1. T. Rules, 1962. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,42,50,900/- made by the A.O. u/s 40A(3) of the 1. T. Act despite the fact that out of Rs. 2.42,50,900/-, cash of Rs. 2.40,24,450/- was paid by the assessee to M/s Anjanay Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of rice and not directly to farmers or growers of paddy and thus exception under Rule 6DD(e) is not applicable here. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,08,07,170/- towards unexplained investment in purchase of land disregarding the finding of the A.O. that assessee had paid the said amount over and above the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed and without calling f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, the addition of Rs. 3,08,07,170/- made in the assessment framed u/s. 153A/143(3) of I T Act which were unabated (since assessment of Asst. Yr. 2012-13 was not pending) on the date of search 03.09.2014 could be held to be sustainable on facts and in law." 4. Through the additional grounds, assessee has contested that in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search at the premises of the assessee, no addition can be made under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Since the issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, the same are admitted for adjudication. 5. Further, assessee has placed on record a petition for the condonation of delay in filing his Cross objection. The reason given for the delay is that the senior manager of the assessee expired during the pandemic of Covid-19 who used to take care of the finance matters. 5.1. In this respect, it is pertinent to note that sub-Section (4) of Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which he is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... multaneously. According to the Ld. Counsel, no addition has been made on the basis of any document seized from the possession of the assessee. He pointed out that addition has been made on the basis of the seized document inventorised as RKM which was found and seized from the factory premises of Anjanay Rice Mills Private Limited and Jagdamba Polyfabs Private Limited. Document referred as JPC was found and seized from the residence and possession of Shri Jayprakash Choudhury. Similarly, document referred as JJFL was found and seized from the premises of Jagat Jagdamba Flour Mills Private Limited and JMJFL from the premises of Jai Maa Jagadamba Flour Private Limited. He thus strongly submitted that no addition has been made on the basis of any seized document recorded and inventorised as KMC in the Panchnama drawn in the name of the assessee. 9. He drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of Panchnama of the assessee placed in the paper book which mentions the name of the assessee and Smt. Munni Devi with the address of 2nd Floor, Prabha Apartment, Kasturba Nagar, Dhanbad. On page 3 of this document at serial number 5(a)(i), it is noted that following were found and seized: "bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition in the section 153A assessment void ab initio. 13. He also referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singhania in IT(SS)A 3,4 and 5/Kol/2018 dated 27.06.2022 which has dealt with a similar issue and held it in the favour of assessee by holding that no addition can be made in an unabated assessment year where there is no incriminating material seized. 14. Per contra, ld. CIT DR submitted that assessee is the member of the Jagdamba group in whose case search operations were undertaken. According to him, various entities of the group were searched together at their different respective premises. Cases of various entities were centralised for the purpose of assessment which were undertaken by the same Assessing Officer. He submitted that there is no dispute on documents referred by the Assessing Officer which were seized during this search operation and not from the premise of the assessee but from the premises of the other entities/assessees in the said group. He placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer for sustaining the additions made. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent entities and assessees in the Jagdamba group for carrying out search operations u/s 132 of the Act, at their respective premises, details of which are already noted above. 17. In this context, it will be important to note that section 292C of the Act provides for a presumption that the documents, assets, books of account, etc found at the time of search in the premises of a person is always presumed to be belonging to him/them unless proved otherwise. The presumption derived under this section is a rebuttable presumption. Thus, the person on whom such a presumption is drawn, has got every right to state that the said document does not belong to him/them. The Assessing Officer, if he is satisfied with such explanation, has got recourse to proceed on such a person in terms of section 153C of the Act. In the present case, the seized documents used by the Assessing Officer for making the additions under section 153A while making assessment of the assessee were found and seized from the third persons as noted above. Thus, the only legal recourse available to the Revenue is to proceed on the assessee in terms of section 153C of the Act. 18. After the deliberation above, the only is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial found and seized during the course of search from the premises of the assessee in his search, in respect of the additions made. It is also undisputed that the year under consideration is an unabated year, considering the date of conduct of search within the meaning of section 153A of the Act. Admittedly, no incriminating material has been referred which was found in the course of search of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. 20. It is also worth-noting a fact that the present case of the assessee was centralised vide order u/s. 127 of the Act. The Ld. AO in the present case has assessed the income of the persons who were searched. Thus, the Ld. AO is common for both, the persons who were searched in whose case the assessments were to be done u/s. 153A of the Act and that in the case of the assessee also, u/s. 153A of the Act. The purpose of centralisation u/s. 127 of the Act is for the coordinated investigation by making assessment of different/various assessees who gets covered under the search and seizure operation. Bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
