9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)" for short]. The assessee has raised similar grounds in all the six appeals except the change in figures. For the sake of brevity and convenience, all the appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order. (2). The grounds of appeal are as under: - IT(SS)A. No. 710/LKW/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- u/s 68 which was shown as liability in balance sheet of the appellant company. 2. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be taken up during the course of appeal proceedings." IT(SS)A. No. 711/LKW/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,28,00,000/- u/s 68 which was shown as liability in balance sheet of the appellant company. 2. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, which was credited in the bank account of the assessee. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, which was credited in the bank account of the assessee, without appreciating the facts of the case. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be taken up during the course of appeal proceedings (2.1). In these cases, search & seizure operations were conducted in Ramesh Group of cases, under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "I.T. Act"); in pursuance whereof assessment orders were separately passed under section 153A read of the I.T. Act. In these assessment orders, additions (corresponding to the amounts mentioned in Grounds of appeal in the present appeals before us) were made under section 68 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 by dint of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra). Further, in paragraph 14 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls 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 fulfilment 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 made in assessment orders passed u/s 153A or u/s 153C of IT Act in cases falling under unabated/completed assessments, when no incriminating material was found at the time of search u/s 132 of the IT Act, was a disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd 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 with regard to the merits of the various additions made." (C.1) Identical view, in favour of the assessee, has also been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT, in the case of Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
