TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Plus+
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (3) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax


  1. 2021 (9) TMI 1565 - SCH
  2. 2022 (11) TMI 738 - HC
  3. 2022 (10) TMI 1060 - HC
  4. 2023 (2) TMI 1116 - HC
  5. 2022 (8) TMI 268 - HC
  6. 2022 (7) TMI 1378 - HC
  7. 2021 (10) TMI 1020 - HC
  8. 2021 (5) TMI 38 - HC
  9. 2021 (2) TMI 1388 - HC
  10. 2025 (6) TMI 1212 - AT
  11. 2025 (4) TMI 1443 - AT
  12. 2025 (4) TMI 989 - AT
  13. 2025 (4) TMI 646 - AT
  14. 2025 (5) TMI 14 - AT
  15. 2025 (3) TMI 145 - AT
  16. 2025 (3) TMI 82 - AT
  17. 2025 (2) TMI 1188 - AT
  18. 2025 (4) TMI 1205 - AT
  19. 2025 (2) TMI 396 - AT
  20. 2025 (5) TMI 1062 - AT
  21. 2025 (1) TMI 906 - AT
  22. 2024 (12) TMI 66 - AT
  23. 2025 (3) TMI 208 - AT
  24. 2025 (4) TMI 200 - AT
  25. 2024 (10) TMI 696 - AT
  26. 2024 (9) TMI 1052 - AT
  27. 2024 (9) TMI 1513 - AT
  28. 2024 (7) TMI 502 - AT
  29. 2024 (6) TMI 1408 - AT
  30. 2024 (6) TMI 899 - AT
  31. 2024 (10) TMI 416 - AT
  32. 2024 (6) TMI 209 - AT
  33. 2024 (4) TMI 837 - AT
  34. 2024 (4) TMI 745 - AT
  35. 2024 (4) TMI 386 - AT
  36. 2024 (3) TMI 1359 - AT
  37. 2024 (3) TMI 708 - AT
  38. 2024 (1) TMI 750 - AT
  39. 2024 (4) TMI 976 - AT
  40. 2023 (11) TMI 1360 - AT
  41. 2024 (1) TMI 52 - AT
  42. 2023 (8) TMI 1505 - AT
  43. 2023 (12) TMI 391 - AT
  44. 2023 (9) TMI 373 - AT
  45. 2023 (7) TMI 129 - AT
  46. 2023 (6) TMI 432 - AT
  47. 2023 (5) TMI 1047 - AT
  48. 2023 (4) TMI 742 - AT
  49. 2023 (3) TMI 474 - AT
  50. 2023 (2) TMI 1202 - AT
  51. 2023 (3) TMI 427 - AT
  52. 2022 (11) TMI 227 - AT
  53. 2022 (10) TMI 216 - AT
  54. 2022 (8) TMI 950 - AT
  55. 2022 (7) TMI 1327 - AT
  56. 2022 (8) TMI 255 - AT
  57. 2022 (7) TMI 331 - AT
  58. 2022 (6) TMI 1392 - AT
  59. 2022 (6) TMI 1476 - AT
  60. 2022 (5) TMI 38 - AT
  61. 2022 (4) TMI 1523 - AT
  62. 2022 (5) TMI 1402 - AT
  63. 2022 (3) TMI 151 - AT
  64. 2022 (3) TMI 341 - AT
  65. 2022 (2) TMI 436 - AT
  66. 2021 (12) TMI 1414 - AT
  67. 2022 (1) TMI 824 - AT
  68. 2021 (12) TMI 867 - AT
  69. 2021 (11) TMI 708 - AT
  70. 2021 (11) TMI 134 - AT
  71. 2021 (11) TMI 707 - AT
  72. 2021 (10) TMI 1432 - AT
  73. 2021 (10) TMI 792 - AT
  74. 2021 (11) TMI 208 - AT
  75. 2021 (9) TMI 465 - AT
  76. 2021 (8) TMI 916 - AT
  77. 2021 (7) TMI 320 - AT
  78. 2021 (6) TMI 542 - AT
  79. 2021 (5) TMI 26 - AT
  80. 2021 (3) TMI 221 - AT
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of ITAT in deleting additions based on bogus long-term capital gain.
2. Validity of failure to provide cross-examination of the entry operator.
3. Applicability of Section 153A based on the search and statement under Section 132(4).
4. Requirement of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A.
5. Legal recourse under Section 153C for using statements from a third-party search.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of ITAT in deleting additions based on bogus long-term capital gain:
The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the additions made on account of bogus long-term capital gain. The ITAT held that the evidences found during the search at the premises of the entry provider cannot be the sole basis for making additions in the assessment completed under Section 153A in the case of the beneficiary. The ITAT emphasized that no incriminating material was found at the Assessee's premises during the search, and the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal recorded under Section 132(4) was not confronted with the Assessee. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the statement alone without corroborative evidence cannot justify the additions.

2. Validity of failure to provide cross-examination of the entry operator:
The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in setting aside the assessment order on the ground that no right of cross-examining Pradeep Kumar Jindal was afforded to the Assessee. The High Court observed that the Assessee was not provided with the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, nor was given the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Court cited that the failure to provide cross-examination, combined with the lack of corroborative material, rendered the additions unjustifiable.

3. Applicability of Section 153A based on the search and statement under Section 132(4):
The Revenue contended that the ITAT wrongly held that the Assessee’s premises were not searched and thus notice under Section 153A could not have been issued. The High Court clarified that the assessment under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. The statement of Mr. Jindal recorded under Section 132(4) alone does not constitute sufficient incriminating material to justify the assessment under Section 153A.

4. Requirement of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A:
The High Court reiterated the legal position that the existence of incriminating material found during the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation. The Court referred to the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla and other precedents, emphasizing that statements recorded under Section 132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The Court held that the statement of Mr. Jindal, without any corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for making additions under Section 153A.

5. Legal recourse under Section 153C for using statements from a third-party search:
The High Court noted that the AO used the statement recorded during the search of a third party (Pradeep Kumar Jindal) for making additions in the hands of the Assessee. The Court highlighted that if the statement was to be construed as incriminating material, the proper legal recourse would have been to proceed under Section 153C by handing over the material to the AO having jurisdiction over the Assessee. The failure to follow this mandatory procedure under Section 153C rendered the assessment under Section 153A invalid.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial question of law that required consideration. The Court upheld the ITAT’s decision, emphasizing the necessity of incriminating material for assessments under Section 153A and the procedural requirements under Section 153C for using third-party statements. The appeals and all pending applications were dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates