9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Abhisar Buildwell [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] and Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] Abhisar Buildwell (supra).
We are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) 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. We direct the AO to delete the additions. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the case of the assessee, in pursuance whereof assessment orders, dated 26/12/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 and assessment order all dated 12/12/2018 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 were separately passed under section 153A read with section 144 of the I.T. Act and additions amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000/- for assessment year 2013-14, and Rs.56,75,000/- for assessment year 2014-15, and Rs.38,00,000/- for assessment year 2015-16 and Rs.2,05,00,000/- for assessment year 2016- 17 respectively were made under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed appeals against the aforesaid assessment orders in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee took the ground, interalia, that the Assessing Officer erred in law as well as on facts in making addition to the returned income without any incriminating documents being found during the course of search. However, the learned CIT(A) did not consider this submissions favourably, and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" for short). (C) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions 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. 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 Incometax 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 Incometax 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of powers u/s 147/148 of the IT Act subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned u/s 147/148 of the IT Act. Thus, although the powers of the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the IT Act were saved 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), 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. Continenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) 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 amounting to a total of Rs.2,24,81,900/- for assessment year 2015-16 and addition amounting to Rs.44,25,000/- for assessment year 2016-17. (C.2.2) Since we have directed that the aforesaid additions be deleted, the other issues regarding merits of the additions made in the aforesaid two years, become merely academic in nature and do not require any adjudication. Therefore, we decline to make any order with regard to the merits of the various additions made." (D.1) Identical view, in favour of the assessee, has also been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT, in the case of Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra). (D.2) No material has been brought to our attention from either side to distinguish the facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us from the facts and circumstances of the precedents mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
