9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der: I.T.A. No.714/Lkw/2024 "1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of non-current liabilities in the balance sheet of the appellant company. 2. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. I.T.A. No.715/Lkw/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.56,75,000/- u/s 68 on account of unsecured Loans of the appellant company. 2. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. I.T.A. No.715/Lkw/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.38,00,000/- on account of amount credited in bank accounts of the appellant company. 2. That the approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC). He further submitted that the Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 687 (Lucknow Trib.), considered aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the same. He also submitted that moreover, in the case of Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Order dated 21/01/2025 in I.T.A. No.146 and 147/Lkw/2023) also, identical issue has been decided by Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that in the present appeals also, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not based on any incriminating documents found in the course of search. Relying on the aforesaid cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra), Smt. Shashi Agarwal (supra) and Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra), he contended that the additions made in the assessment orders should be deleted. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) and relied on the same. The learned Departmental Representative did not dispute the claim mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur Balaji 447 ITR 517 (All.), CIT vs. K. P. Ummer 413 ITR 251 (Ker.), Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre vs. DCIT 362 ITR 664 (Ker.), E. N. Gopakumar 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala), etc. The issue has now been finally settled by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) wherein view in favour of assessee has been taken. (C.2.1) In the present appeals before us, the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the IT Act. Further, we have already noted earlier that the relevant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT vs U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd (2023) 150 Taxmann.com 108 (SC), and further, on due consideration of aforesaid Instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) [Instruction No.1 of 2023 (F. No.279/Misc./M-54/2023-IT)] directing the field authorities to implement the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd (supra), in uniform manner; we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000/- for assessment year 2013-14 Rs.56,75,000/- for assessment year 2014-15 Rs.38,00,000/- for assessment year 2015-16 and Rs.2,05,00,000/- for assessment year 2016-17 respectively. (E) Ground No. 2 of the appeal in all the appeals before us has become merely academic in nature due to our decision in foregoing paragraph (D.2.1) of this order; and need not be adjudicated. Hence, we decline to decide the ground No. 2 in each of the four appeals before us. All the other grounds of appeals in the four appeals before us are treated as disposed of in accordance with our decision in foregoing paragraph (D.2.1) of this order. (E.1) In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
