9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UMAR, JM: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida-3 [hereinafter referred as CIT(A) ] dated 18.05.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-2014 under section 153A/143(3) arises out of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Ghaziabad dated 02.08.2021 under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as the Act ]. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities, the revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained advance u/s 69 of LT. Act. 1961 without considering the fact as elaborated in the assessment order 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying the judgment of Apex Court in the case of PCIT Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd and other in the Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 dated 24.04.2023, whereas the Apex court in the case of PCIT Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd has discussed the case of M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee was specifically asked to furnish the details of advances received alongwith their confirmations and documentary evidences, however, the same were not furnished. Ld. AO states that in respect of the advances against land, the copy of agreement, details and confirmation of persons from whom advances have been received, were not furnished for verification. Ld. AD observes that vide reply furnished on 24.06.2021, the assessee has stated that out of Rs. 3,77,00,000/-, Rs. 2,01,00,000/- was received from M/s Sigma Buildcrafts Pvt Ltd against sale of land at Piplahera, Khasra No. 660 and 661, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur on 07.06.2013 and the relevant sale deed of the property alongwith ledger account and bank statement has been furnished. However regarding the remaining amount of Rs 1,76,00,000/- the assessee has stated that these advances were received against Land at Khichra village and the advances were returned back to the parties (6 entities), in subsequent financial year as no deal could materialize. Ld. AO states that the assessee has furnished the ledger accounts and his bank statement showing the receipt of advances, however, no confirmation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant had approached all the concerned parties and requested them to provide their bank statements and income tax returns for the period under consideration however since the matter pertains to F.Y. 2012-13 which is almost 10 years old, most of them were unable to retrieve the statements and some were reluctant to provide the same. Ld. AR submits that after constant persuasion, the said parties provided their PAN details and confirmed accounts. The said details were furnished before the Ld.. AO during the remand proceedings however the Ld. AO merely stated that these documents do not satisfy the credit worthiness of the parties Ld. AR submits that in order to justify the advances, the appellant submitted the confirmed copies of accounts from all the parties containing their name, address and PAN details before the Ld. AO. Ld. AR submits that from these details, it can be seen that the transactions held amongst the parties are genuine. He further submits that in addition to these copies of the supporting documents ie confirmations, copies of ITR and bank statements of parties have also been enclosed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties as well as genuinen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. and others in the Civil Appeal no. 6580 of 2021 and connected appeals filed by the Revenue as well as various other assessees in the judgment delivered on 24.04.2023 (Hon'ble Judges Sh. M R Shah and Sh. Sudhanshu Dhulia), in which following observation has been made: ......14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AD assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated: iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns, and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA Nos 357/2015, 358/2015, 565/2015 and 566/2015. The question before the High Court was, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition made on the basis of the incriminating material during the course of search. 16.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasoning, all these appeals filed by the assessee - Dayawanti through legal heir fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Ld. AR submits that in view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue stands settled that if there is no incriminating material, the assessment cannot be framed u/s 153A of IT Act. 6.10 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Central-3 vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd. and others in the Civil Appeal no. 6580 of 2021 and connected appeals filed by the Revenue as well as various other assessee in the judgment delivered on 24.04.2023 (Hon'ble Judges Sh. M R Shah and Sh. Sudhanshu Dhulia), I am of the opinion that the addition le. Rs. 1,76,00,000/- made u/s 68 of IT Act cannot be sustained. Hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
