TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial relating to AY 2010-11 was found during the search action. We decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Addition made on account of extra profit - CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report dated 10.12.2018 categorically held that the AO has failed to point out any incriminating material found during the search on the basis of which addition on account of extra profit was made. AO has stated in the remand report that goods sold in cash were not recorded in the books of accounts and this was extrapolated for all the Assessment Years falling in the block period. Thus, it is clear that there was no incriminating material found in course of search action relating to Assessment Year in question. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 1927 & 1928/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - Sh. Aakash Deep Jain, Vice President And Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessee by: Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulshshtha, CIT DR ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n recorded in the books of accounts of assessee. 7. Whether on the facts of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in relying on the decisions in cases of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia in the current case when these decisions are distinguishable on facts. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in, not upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search on the basis of which additions have been made by the assessing officer as held in the case of Kabul Chawla even when, the principal laid down in the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla has not been accepted by the Revenue S.L.P. there against has been filed which is pending for adjudication before the Hon ble Apex Court. 9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on the ground that the addition has not been made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search, even when incriminating evidences w.r.t. the unrecorded cash sales were found, non disclosure of cash sales in books was confessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the ratio laid down in that case is not binding upon the department at present. 6. At this juncture, we would like to mention that the said SLP has been dismissed summarily by the Hon ble Apex Court. 7. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The main argument taken up by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that there was no seized incriminating material found based on which the assessment was completed and also that during the regular assessment, the receipt of the share capital has been duly examined and accepted. 9. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the written submission of the assessee on 03.12.2018 on these issues. The AO submitted remand report on 10.12.2018 wherein it was reported that the Annexure A-9 mentions the names of the shareholder and it acquired incriminating character in view of Annexure A-6 which shows the expenditure incurred on arrangement to introduce share capital. The AO relied on the judgments in the case of E.N. Gopa Kumar Vs. CIT 75 Taxmann 215, CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Arora 52 Taxmann 172 (All.), CIT Vs. Kesharwani Zarda Bhandar in ITA 270/2014 (All.), Dayawanti Vs. CIT 75 Taxmann 308 and Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493, Harish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it had never received any share capital/premium from M/s Jagprem Vypaar Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sundaram Distributors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Genius Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chamundaji Sales Pvt. Ltd. the companies allegedly controlled by Sh. Anand Sharma as per statement. 12. Further, the ITR of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of such scrutiny proceedings, the then A.O. had made direct inquiries from the above named parties. After getting himself fully satisfied, the then A.O. had passed the assessment order u/s 143(3). It may be worth pointing out that the said assessment had attained finality, in as much as neither proceedings u/s 263 nor proceedings u/s 148 were initiated against the assessee for A.Y.2010-11. Further, during the course of proceedings initiated by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, no document of incriminating nature apropos such share capital /premium received by the assessee from the above named parties was unearthed. This fact could be read from the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle- 05 New Delhi u/s 153A/143(3) on 31.03.2016 (para 4.4), the DCIT, Central Circle- 05 New Delhi had mentioned about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
