TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and we therefore are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. - ITA 186/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2019 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND MR. SANJEEV NARULA JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Junior Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: None SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): 1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ) is directed against the order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT ) Bench B New Delhi in ITA 2047/De1/2016 for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) dated 25.01.2016, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The operative portion of the said order of the CIT (A) reads as under: 5.3 Findings: The findings are as under:- 5.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submissions, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant, are discussed as under:- (i) It has been submitted by the Appellant that the original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 18.12.2009, consequent of search and seizure action u/s 132 on 12.01.2012. In the assessment order, no addition was made and the assessment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed u/s 143(3), was completed before the initiation of search and seizure action u/s 132, on 12.01.2012. Therefore, I hold that no assessment/ reassessment proceedings, were abated as on 12.01.2012 i.e. the date of initiation of action u/s 132 of the Act. (b) It is also clear from the assessment order that the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68, is not based on any incriminating document found/seized during the search action u/s 132 and therefore, I hold that the A.O. has no jurisdiction to make an addition u/s 68, while passing order u/s 153A/153C. This view is also supported by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 61 Taxmann.com 412 (Del), which is squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 132 of the Act and No incriminating document is found during action u/s 132. In view of the above, it is not necessary to adjudicate ground no. 1, 4 to 7. 7. Ground no. 9 is against charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. This ground is consequential in nature. The A.O. is directed to charge interest as per provision of the Act, on total income, after giving effect to this order. Therefore, for statistical purposes, ground no. 9, is treated as allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the CIT (A), Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the CIT (A), and also relying upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
