TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO himself in the impugned assessment order has not referred to any seized documents or incriminating material found during the course of search albeit has proceeded on the perusal of the computation of income filed in the original return of income. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] after considering catena of decision has held that if in relation to any Assessment Year, no incriminating material is found then no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that Assessment Year in exercise of power u/s.153A. This principle has been reiterated in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia [ 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and again in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 1.10 crores made in the assessment order on merits. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee has filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 30.03.2006 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. A search and seizure action was carried out on 15.11.2007 and accordingly, notice u/s.153A was issued for the Assessment Year 2005-06 on 02.12.2008, in response to which, assessee has filed his return of income. In the return of income filed on 30.03.2006 and again on 29.01.2009, assessee has included long term capital gain of ₹ 1.10 crore against which exemption u/s.54F which was claimed in the following manner:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the date of search. Reliance was placed on catena of decisions which has been noted by the ld. CIT (A) in the impugned order. Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition on the ground that, since there is no incriminating material found in the course of search, therefore, addition cannot be made u/s.153A. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT (A) is reproduced hereunder:- I have perused the assessment orders. The entire addition is on account of surrender of tenancy right shown as capital gain claimed as exempt u/s.54F of the IT Act, which is assessed as income from other source. Nowhere, there is reference of incriminating material/evidences seized during the action u/s 132 in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating seized incriminating document for any of the assessment year covered u/s 153 A. Therefore, the decision in the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia does not empower the assessing officer to make the addition u/s 153A. Hon ble ITAT, Delhi in series of decision relied by Ld. AR such Parivar Properties (P) Ltd. PACL India Ltd., M/s. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Cited supra after considering the decision of hon ble jurisdictional High Court have held that addition u/s 153A cannot be made without incriminating evidences in case of assessment which are not abated. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in above cited case, in my view, in present case, addition cannot be made u/s 153A in case whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iple has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, reported in (2017), 395 ITR 526 and again in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 84 taxmann.com 287 (Del.). In view of the binding judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that no addition can be roped in the assessment made u/s.153A in absence of any incriminating found during the course of search, especially in the case of unabated assessment. Thus, the observation and the finding of the ld. CIT (A) is affirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
