9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal and against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has not been found violating the provisions of section 68 but still the impugned order has been passed by the learned officer. 3. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) had also not apply his mind at the time of passing the order u/s 250. There is no incriminating material found during the Search. 4. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT (Appeals) is against the principles of natural justice of the case. 5. That the Approval u/s 153D has been given without application of mind and. the impugned order passed deserves to be dropped." (B) In this case, a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") was conducted on Shri Kailash Chand Jain & Others on 14/12/2020, in pursuance whereof assessment order dated 26/09/2022 was passed under section 153A of the I.T. Act and addition amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was made under section 68 of the I.T. Act on substantive basis; while protective additions were made in the hands of the respective lenders. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra). The relevant portion of the order of Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT (supra) is reproduced as under: - "(C) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. There is no dispute regarding relevant facts. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further it is also not in dispute that no assessment proceedings were pending in the cases of the assessee at the time of search conducted on 08/07/2016 in the case of the assessee, u/s 132 of the IT Act. Further, as no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 08/07/2016, the case of the assessee falls in the category of unabated/completed assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and within the meaning of order passed in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which stands approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court held that in respect of the completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made in assessment order passed u/s 153A or passed u/s 153C of the IT Act in respect of which incriminating materials were not found in the course of search action u/s 132A of the Act; although Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers u/s 147/148 of the IT Act subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned u/s 147/148 of the IT Act. Thus, although the powers of the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the IT Act were saved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), subject to fulfillment of conditions envisaged u/s 147/148 of the IT Act; it has been categorically held that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made u/s 153A or under section 153C of the Act if incriminating material was not found / unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the additions made. (C.2) The issue whether additions can be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra). In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before us, and further, as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, we are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and by the aforesaid instruction No. 1 of 2023 of CBDT, which is binding on Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made amounting to a total of Rs. 2,24,81,900/- for assessment year 2015-16 and addition amounting to Rs. 44,25,000/- for assessment year 2016-17. (C.2.2) Since we have directed that the aforesaid additions be deleted, the other issues regarding merits of the additions made in the aforesaid two years, become merely academic in nature and do not require any adjudication. Therefore, we decline to make any order wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
