2014 (7) TMI 254 - AT - Income Tax

Section 153A Limits Additions to Pending Years Only When Incriminating Material Is Found During Search

Sanjay Aggarwal Versus DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi.

Sanjay Aggarwal Versus DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Admissibility of additional grounds raised before the Tribunal.3. Applicability of Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material.4. Interpretation of judicial precedents and their applicability to the present case.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Addition Made Under Section 68:The case arose from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on 31.07.2008. The assessee declared a long-term capital loss on the sale of a flat, claiming it was inherited and sold at a loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed discrepancies due to the absence of a Conveyance deed and held that the property was sold before 15.06.2002, thus treating the transaction as a story made up to introduce unaccounted funds. This led to an addition of Rs. 9,90,050 under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A).2. Admissibility of Additional Grounds Raised Before the Tribunal:The assessee raised an additional ground before the Tribunal, arguing that no incriminating evidence was found during the search to justify the addition under Section 153A. Despite the Revenue's opposition, the Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), admitted the additional ground as it was a pure legal question arising from the facts found by the authorities below and impacting the tax liability.3. Applicability of Section 153A in the Absence of Incriminating Material:The Tribunal examined whether the addition could be sustained under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (SB) (Mum), which held that no addition can be made for concluded assessments unless incriminating material is found during the search. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 252 CTR (Del) 291 and CIT vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012) 254 CTR (Del) 392, noting that these cases dealt with different contexts.4. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the superior wisdom of the High Court over the Tribunal's decisions. It clarified that the judgments in SSP Aviation Ltd. and Chetan Das Lachman Das did not apply to the present case as they dealt with different issues. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's obiter dicta in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493 (Del), which suggested that additions in non-pending assessments should be based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the AO could not make additions for assessment years not pending on the date of search unless incriminating material was found.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO to decide afresh, considering whether the assessment for AY 2003-04 was pending on the date of search and whether any incriminating material was found. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2014.