Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 120 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- On the date of search carried on 3.3.2011, the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 was not pending as already assessment order was passed on 24.12.2009 as stated above. Thus, in terms of 2nd proviso to section 153A, the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 cannot be held to be abated assessment. Further, from the records it is clear that no incriminating material was found qua the addition made during the course of search and therefore, in view of the proposition laid down in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S. FERNS ‘N’ PETALS [2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] no addition can be made in case of unabated assessment if no incriminating material has been found during the course of the search qua that assessment year. Here in this case AO has simply made the addition on the basis of already material available on record during the course of the original assessment proceedings, therefore, the addition made is beyond the scope of section 153A and same is directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Fresh proceedings u/s 153(A) was initiated in wake of search and seizure action carried out on 3.3.2011. Thus, on the date of search, assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 was not pending and in view of 2nd proviso to section 153A, such an assessment is reckoned as unabated assessment. AO noted that the Tribunal in the first round of proceedings has set aside the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D to be decided afresh. AO instead of passing the fresh assessment order in view of the direction of the Tribunal has made the disallowance in the present proceedings of ₹ 41,637/-, which has been confirmed by the CIT (A) also. The disallowance has been worked out by calculating 0.25% of the investment of the average investment. Here in this year also, the aforesaid addition is not based on any incriminating material and therefore, being an unabated assessment, addition could not be made without any incriminating material. Our reasoning given in the earlier appeal following the ratio and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we delete the said addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|