TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete the block assessment under Section 153A without any relevance or nexus with the seized material . The Court also held that an assessment in such circumstances has to be made under the provision only on the basis of seized material - it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and abetted assessment or re-assessment can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (CIT) who had upset the decision of the Assessing Officer (hereafter referred as AO). The question of law which the Revenue seeks to urge before the Court is that the AO was justified in bringing to tax a sum of ₹ 17,19,14,701/- on account of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The brief facts are that the respondent/assessee had filed a return of income on 15.03.2010 declaring income to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 and after noticing that no fresh material was found during the course of the search, thus directed the deletion of the amount of ₹ 17,19,14,701/- brought to tax under Section 153A. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, which by the impugned order affirmed his determination. The ITAT reasoning is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the assessee was accordingly allowed. 4. After considering the rival contention, we are of the view the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (supra) in which it was held: IT: Completed assessments can be interfered with by Assessing Officer while making assessment under section 153A only on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be reiterated and abetted assessment or re-assessment can be made. In the present case, the Revenue does not urge that it discovered any new material justifying the addition under Section 2(22)(e). Rather, there was no material to connect the additions made under that head. Clearly, there was no incriminating material or facts or circumstances justifying the addition of ₹ 17,19,14,701/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
