9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Grounds raised in appeals and cross objections are, more or less, identical except variation in figures. 2. In its cross-objections the assessee has raised certain legal and jurisdictional issues challenging the validity of the assessment orders. Since the issues raised in the cross-objections are jurisdictional issues, going to the root of the matter, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate them at the very outset. 3. In ground number 1 & 2 of cross objections the assessee has challenged the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), on the ground that in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized in course of search and seizure op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey/share premium received are in the nature of unexplained cash credits in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added back amounts of Rs. 11,17,00,000/- and Rs. 30,15,90,000/- representing share application money/share premium in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Additionaly, in assessment year 2011-12 the Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs. 17,170 by way of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 80. 5. Against the additions so made, the assessee preferred appeals before First Appellate Authority, inter alia, on the ground that in absence of incriminating material, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act could not have been initiated. While deciding appeals, First Appellate Authority did not find merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement recorded in course of search and seizure operation, reference to undisclosed income was found. However, she fairly submitted that in the assessment orders the Assessing Officer has not specifically referred to any incriminating/seized material. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents, cited supra. It is a fact on record that the additions made in the impugned orders are in relation to share application money/share premium received by the assessee, being treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and disallowance made in assessment year 2011-12 u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. Careful perusal of the assessment orders revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... none of the additions made in the assessment orders are based on any incriminating/ seized material, found during search and seizure operations. 9. In the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "(i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A: (ii) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
