2018 (5) TMI 2123 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - proof of any incriminating material found in search or not? - HELD THAT - As assessee s name nowhere appears and seized materials are in case of Sh.Mahesh Mehta M/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd - as the statement recorded under section 133 (4) of Sh.Mahesh Mehta do not refer to any seized material relating to share application money received by assessee for the year under consideration. See KABUL CHAWLA 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT . - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- on account of cash credit.
3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- on account of commission @ 0.5%.
4. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans.
5. Validity of assessment proceedings under section 153A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightfully admitted the additional evidence, which led to the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence, as it was crucial for a just determination of the case.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Cash Credit:
The AO had added Rs. 3,50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) deleted this addition based on additional evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search that could justify this addition. Therefore, the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission:
The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- on account of commission at 0.5%. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal found that there was no material evidence found during the search to support this addition. Thus, the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal.

4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unsecured Loans:
The AO had added Rs. 14,00,000/- as unexplained unsecured loans. The CIT(A) deleted this addition based on the additional evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting that no incriminating material was found during the search to support the addition.

5. Validity of Assessment Proceedings under Section 153A:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153A, arguing that the additions were not based on any seized material. The Tribunal referred to the decision in ACIT vs. MKR Construction Pvt. Ltd., which held that no addition could be made if no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, which stated that completed assessments could only be interfered with based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found in this case, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings under section 153A.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, quashing the assessment proceedings under section 153A and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that additions could not be made without incriminating material found during the search, upholding the legal principles established in previous judgments.