TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DELHI] wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor has Revenue pointed to any distinguishing feature in the present case and that of husband of assessee, Mr. Vinod Kumar Taneja - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1874/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2023 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Ravi Pratap , Adv. For the Revenue : Shri T. James Singson , CIT - D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.12.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,52,34,540/- on account of undisclosed investment in shares. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) by holding that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 153A of the 1.T.Act. 1961 and made addition to the returned income when no incrementing material was found during the course of search and seizure action. 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted that though the Revenue has raised various grounds but all the grounds are int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the identical issue arising out of the same search arose in the case of husband of the assessee, Mr. Vinod Kumar Taneja, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2022 in ITA No.1874/Del/2019 had upheld the order of CIT(A). He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order. He submitted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical to the case of husband of the assessee Mr. Vinod Kumar Taneja (supra) no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that CIT(A) has quashed the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) by observing as under : 5.3 On perusal of material on record it is noticed that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. at very low price by the appellant. 5.5 It is further noticed that the AO issued notice u/s 153A of the Act to the appellant on 25.08.2017. As recorded in the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act the AO concluded that the proceedings re-opened u/s 148 of the Act has got abated as per second proviso to section 153A of the Act. In course of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act the AO proposed to make addition of the unsecured loan received by the appellant from M/s Vidya Shankar Investments Pvt. Ltd. and also the difference in book value and purchase price of the shares of M/s Index Securities Research Pvt. purchased by the appellant. It was specifically contended by the appellant that since no incriminating material was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material. 5.7 On due consideration I further hold that the AO is not justified in concluding that the case of the appellant re-opened u/s 148 of the Act got abated on issuance of notice u/s 153A of the Act and therefore the case of the appellant was open for complete scrutiny in proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. The AO has failed to note that under the second proviso to section 153A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 496 (Del), I hold that the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in the instant case for AY 2010-11 was not justified and therefore is quashed. In such circumstances the additions made by the AO on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act and unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act respectively do not survive. Thus, Ground No. 2 of appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 10. We further find that identical issue arose in the case of the husband of the assessee, Mr. Vinod Kumar Taneja, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2022 had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor has Revenue pointed to any distinguishing feature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
