Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 464 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - addition made in the hands of assessee u/s 153C - Whether incriminating material was found and seized during the course of search operation conducted in the case of one of the partners of assessee firm by name, Ajaz Farooqui and his related business concerns? - non -availing of IDS - HELD THAT:- Revenue has failed to point out any incriminating document found during the course of search pertaining to / belonging to the assessee firm relevant to the assessment years under consideration from the records of Assessing Officer as well as from the record of the Tribunal which formed basis of making the addition in the hands of assessee. The law is fairly settled that no addition can be made in the hands of assessee u/s 153C in the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee firm for the years under consideration. Further, the assessee in this case had filed return of income which was duly noticed by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording satisfaction, however, despite knowing the return of income and alleged non-disclosure of the bank account in the return of income, the Assessing Officer has not resorted to proceed u/s 147 / 148 of the Act. In the present case, as mentioned above, a search was carried out in the premises of Ajaz Farooqui, one of the partners of the assessee firm, and his related business concerns and some incriminating material / documents were found and seized. However, the documents so found do not pertain to the years under consideration and therefore, cannot form the basis for making an addition in the hands of assessee under section 153C. From the perusal of the assessment order and the seized material, it is clear that no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer based on the incriminating material. Therefore, the plea of the Revenue that the additions were made on the basis of the seized material is without any basis. Further, we may point out that the Assessing Officer had also examined the return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice which was duly considered by him and the income already been declared was considered while computing the total income for Rs. 2,25,65,581/-. Thus, the additions made by the AO were not based on the incriminating material and hence, the action on the part of the CIT(A) in our opinion is in accordance with the law. As in view of the support drawn from the decision in the case of M/s. G.V.K. Enterprises [2021 (12) TMI 1394 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. Though, DR had sought to distinguish the decision on the pretext that the assessee has not gone to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. We have already mentioned that once the assessee had filed the return of income and the same was also considered by the AO at the time of assessment, therefore, non- availing of IDS will not be a reason to distinguish the case. Further, we do not find any material on record to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. G.V.K. Enterprises [2021 (12) TMI 1394 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has been set aside / stayed / overruled by any higher judicial forum. No other ground has been adjudicated by us, as the appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed on the sole ground adjudicated by us while deciding Revenue appeal.
|