9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T vs. Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which was approved in the case of Abhisar Buildwell [ 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] and U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. [ 2023 (5) TMI 373 - SC ORDER] and by the aforesaid instruction No. 1 of 2023 of CBDT, which is binding on Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member And Shri Subhash Malguria, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT (D.R.) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate orders, both dated 25/04/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 (DIN Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1052325007(1) and for assessment year 2016-17 (DIN Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052325703(1) of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) for short]. These two appeals are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. (A.1) In assessment year 2015-16, assessment order dated 31/12/2018 was passed u/s 153A read with section 144 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Appellate Tribunal, once again, the assessee has once again raised grounds of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact that no incriminating documents relating to these additions were found during the course of search. In addition, separate grounds of appeals have also been taken by the assessee on merits of the various aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment orders which were confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the aforesaid impugned appellate orders. (A.1) As the assessment orders as well as impugned appellate orders have been passed ex-parte, qua the assessee, the issues in dispute in the present appeals before us have arisen in the absence of any consideration of submissions of the assessee. (B) At the time of hearing before us, the appellant assessee was represented by Shri Akshay Agrawal, learned Advocate; and Revenue was represented by Shri Manu Chaurasia, learned CIT (D.R.). Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue as to whether additions can be made in assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the Act wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024] 158 taxmann.com 28 (Punjab Haryana) (13) R. B. Jewellers (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2023] 157 taxmann.com 493 (Calcutta) (14) Pr. CIT vs. Kaushik Devjibhai Patel [2023] 152 taxmann.com 462 (Gujarat) (15) Pr. CIT vs. Shardaben Arvindbhai Patel [2023] 152 taxmann.com 535 (Gujarat) (16) Pr. CIT vs. Sidhi Vinayak Aromatics (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1700 (Delhi) (17) Pr. CIT vs. Phalguni Enclave (P.) Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 155 (Calcutta) (18) Pr. CIT vs.j Birju Chhotalal Shah [2023] 154 taxmann.com 469 (Gujarat) (19) ACIT vs. Saluja Construction Co. Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 545 (Delhi) (20) Pr. CIT vs. Swetaben Ghanshyambhai Patel [2023] 152 taxmann.com 404 (Gujarat) (21) Pr. CIT vs. Shyama Power India Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 403 (Gauhati) (22) Shyam Sunder Jindal vs. ACIT [2204] 159 taxmann.com 1384 (Delhi) (23) Pr. CIT vs. Salarpuna Properties (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 51 (Calcutta) (24) CIT vs. Fortune Vanijya (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 191 (Gauhati) (25) Sunny Jacob Jewellers vs. CIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 722 (Kerala) (26) ACIT vs. Radha Madhav Developers [2024] 165 taxmann.com 578 (Nagpur-Trib.) (27) Shamsher Singh vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT Act. Further, as no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of search seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 08/07/2016, the case of the assessee falls in the category of unabated/completed assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and within the meaning of order passed in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which stands approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dint of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra). Further, in paragraph 14 of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under: 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded 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 pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), subject to fulfillment of conditions envisaged u/s 147/148 of the IT Act; it has been categorically held that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made u/s 153A or under section 153C of the Act if incriminating material was not found / unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the additions made. (C.2) The issue whether additions can be made in assessment orders passed u/s 153A or u/s 153C of IT Act in cases falling under unabated/completed assessments, when no incriminating material was found at the time of search u/s 132 of the IT Act, was a disputed issue in the past. While a view in favour of assessee was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
