9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2.2 Because, without prejudice, in the interests of justice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings since the same go to the root of the issue before the learned CIT(A). 3. Because, without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/made by the learned assessing officer despite the fact that no incriminating document was found against the assessee during the course of search. 4. Because the learned CIT(A) has passed the appellate order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without considering the facts, the applicable law and without application of mind. 5. Because the CIT(A) did not allow the assessee sufficient opportunity to make compliance of the reasons relied upon for confirming disallowances and additions made by the learned assessing officer. 6. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the fact, law and principles of natural justice. 7. Any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing." 2. In this case, a search & seizure operation under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of search. He further submitted that the additions have been made only on the basis of figures reported in the balance-sheet of the assessee. Relying on the aforesaid cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra), and Smt. Shashi Agarwal (supra), he contended that the additions made in the assessment orders for Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15 should be deleted. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) and relying on the same. 4. We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. In the case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (supra), coordinate bench of ITAT Lucknow has decided the matter in favour of the assessee, relying on Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra), on the issue whether additions can be made in a search assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during search. The relevant portion of the order of Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT (supra) is reproduced as under: - "(C) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. There is no dispute regarding relevant facts. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bated assessments can be reopened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." (C.1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) widened the application of the order in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) to assessments conducted u/s 153C of the IT Act also. In both orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in respect of the completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made in assessment order passed u/s 153A or passed u/s 153C of the IT Act in respect of which incriminating materials were not found in the course of search action u/s 132A of the Act; although Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the completed/unabated asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further it is also not in dispute that no assessment proceedings were pending in the cases of the assessee at the time of search conducted on 08/07/2016 in the case of the assessee, u/s 132 of the IT Act. Furthermore, as no assessment proceedings were pending in the case of the assessee at the time when (on 08/07/2016) search u/s 132 of the IT Act was conducted, the case of the assessee in the present appeals before us, falls in the category of completed/unabated assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra). In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before us, and further, as representatives of both sides are in agreement with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
