Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 270 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened - Bogus share capital and Unaccounted commission - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in this case, CIT(A) has held that there is no description or reference of any incriminating documents related to the assessee found or seized during the course of the search from the premises of the group concerns and all the transactions as specified in the documents on the basis of which satisfaction note had been recorded have duly been recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company. Accordingly, by an order dated 4.10.2021, DR was directed to furnish a paper book sought to be relied by the Revenue consisting of documents which formed the basis for recording satisfaction by the AO. DR was directed to identify the documents which are incriminating and found or seized at the time of search and pertained to assessee. The case was accordingly adjourned to 22.11.2021 for final arguments on the matter. On the next & final hearing on 22.11.2021, DR placed on record before us the paper book. Upon perusal thereof, it has been observed that all these documents are forming part of assessment records before the AO and have already been considered during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). After carefully considering the entirety of facts and principles of law enshrined by various courts including jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Index Securities Pvt. Ltd [2017 (9) TMI 585 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] we are inclined to agree with the view of the Ld. CIT(A)that since the assessment based on the original return of income filed under sec. 139 of the Act was not pending as on the date of search as such, the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search belonging to the assessee for the assessment year under consideration is legally unsustainable. Revenue has not been able to rebut the findings recorded by the ld CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on various legal issues raised by the assessee. Revenue has not even challenged the finding of the CIT(A) of his appellate order fact that “no incriminating documents has been seized”. We find absolutely no justification for the AO to initiate proceedings against the assessee and as such the finding of the Ld CIT(A) cannot be held to be erroneous either on facts or in law. Thus, for the reasons stated above and as has been upheld by the Ld CIT(A) in his order which we fully agree, we do not find any merit in the appeal by the Revenue, which is hence dismissed.
|