Tribunal confirms cancellation of assessment due to irrelevant seized documents. Department appeals dismissed, assessee objections rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to cancel the assessment, ruling that documents seized did not pertain to the assessee. Consequently, department appeals were dismissed, and assessee objections were rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment cancellation by CIT (A).
2. Right to cross-examine Mr. R.K. Miglani.
3. Jurisdiction of the CIT (A) in completing the assessment.
4. Disallowances in assessment proceedings u/s 153C/A.
5. Book Profits assessment u/s 115JA.
6. Provision for interest payable as per Allahabad High Court order.
7. Profit from power plants and its taxability u/s 115JA.
8. Computation of interest u/s 234A.
9. Computation of interest u/s 234B.
10. Credit of tax paid by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the assessment cancellation by CIT (A):
The sole effective ground taken by the Department was that the CIT (A) erred in canceling the assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) correctly followed the order dated 23.11.2012 in 'National Industrial Corporation Ltd.' and thirty other connected matters, which held that documents seized from Mr. R.K. Miglani's residence did not belong to the members of UPDA, including the present assessee. Therefore, the CIT (A) was justified in canceling the assessment.

2. Right to cross-examine Mr. R.K. Miglani:
The assessee contended that they were entitled to cross-examine Mr. R.K. Miglani, whose statement was relied upon by the Assessing Officer. However, this issue was not elaborately discussed in the judgment as the primary focus was on the validity of the assessment cancellation.

3. Jurisdiction of the CIT (A) in completing the assessment:
The assessee argued that the CIT (A) erred in assuming jurisdiction and completing the assessment when no addition was made based on documents found during the search. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the documents seized did not belong to the assessee, thus invalidating the jurisdiction for assessment under section 153C.

4. Disallowances in assessment proceedings u/s 153C/A:
The assessee claimed that disallowances liable to be made in regular assessment could not be made in the assessment proceedings u/s 153C/A, especially when no incriminating documents were found. The Tribunal supported this view, emphasizing that no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search, which invalidated the assessments under section 153C.

5. Book Profits assessment u/s 115JA:
The assessee contended that the Book Profits assessed u/s 115JA should have been Rs.37,168/- instead of Rs.12,63,68,811/-. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus remained on the validity of the assessment cancellation.

6. Provision for interest payable as per Allahabad High Court order:
The assessee argued that the provision for interest payable as per the Allahabad High Court order on additional levy sugar price and disputed sugar cane price was for ascertained liability and should not be added back under Clause 'c' of Explanation to Second Proviso to Section 115JA(2). The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail due to the overarching finding that the assessments under section 153C were invalid.

7. Profit from power plants and its taxability u/s 115JA:
The assessee claimed that profits from power plants amounting to Rs.12,16,88,179/- were derived from the business of power generation and should not be taxed u/s 115JA. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the primary focus on the invalidity of the assessment under section 153C.

8. Computation of interest u/s 234A:
The assessee contended that the AO should compute interest u/s 234A for 6 months instead of 7 months. This issue was not specifically addressed by the Tribunal, as the main focus was on the invalidation of the assessment under section 153C.

9. Computation of interest u/s 234B:
The assessee argued that interest u/s 234B should be Rs.69,72,939/- instead of Rs.1,44,13,152/-. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the primary focus on the invalidity of the assessment under section 153C.

10. Credit of tax paid by the appellant:
The assessee claimed that the AO should allow credit for tax of Rs.5,625/- paid by the appellant. This issue was not specifically addressed by the Tribunal, as the main focus was on the invalidation of the assessment under section 153C.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to cancel the assessment, based on the finding that the documents seized from Mr. R.K. Miglani's residence did not belong to the members of UPDA, including the present assessee. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the department were dismissed, and all the cross objections raised by the assessee were rejected as infructuous.

---