2018 (12) TMI 914 - AT - Income Tax

High Court invalidates tax search, voids proceedings under section 153A, deletes undisclosed investment additions. Revenue appeals dismissed.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision in a tax appeal, ruling that the search conducted under section 132 was invalid as no incriminating material was ... Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153A - proof of incriminating martial found in search - Held that:- As relying on PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, NEW DELHI VERSUS SUBHASH KHATTAR [2017 (7) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT]The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the Aerence Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act was misconceived since the so-called incriminating material was not found during the search of the Assessee's premises. The Revenue could have proceeded against the Assessee on the basis of the documents discovered under any other provision of law, but certainly, not under Section 153A. This goes to the root of the matter. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of search conducted under section 132 and subsequent proceedings under section 153A.2. Addition of undisclosed investment amount in books of accounts.3. Deletion of additions based on seized documents.4. Deletion of addition under section 69A for unexplained investment in jewellery.5. Deletion of additions related to cash payments and foreign liquor purchase.Issue 1:The appeal challenged the validity of a search conducted under section 132, contending that it lacked jurisdiction and was not supported by incriminating material. The subsequent proceedings under section 153A were deemed void ab initio. The ITAT, citing precedents, held that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under section 153A was unfounded due to the absence of incriminating material during the search. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that no incriminating material was found during the search of the appellant's premises, rendering the notice under section 153A misconceived.Issue 2:Regarding the addition of an undisclosed investment amount in the books of accounts, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the addition made under section 153A. The decision was based on the lack of corroborative evidence supporting the addition, emphasizing the necessity for concrete proof in such cases. The ITAT's decision in a similar case was upheld by the High Court, leading to the deletion of the addition in the present case as well.Issue 3:The ITAT deleted additions made based on seized documents in multiple appeals, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to support such additions. The decisions in similar cases were followed, leading to the deletion of additions in the present appeals as well.Issue 4:In an appeal related to the deletion of an addition under section 69A for unexplained investment in jewellery, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the tax effect being below a specified threshold. The Circular No. 3/2018 was applied to uphold the deletion of the addition.Issue 5:Regarding deletions of additions related to cash payments and foreign liquor purchase, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The tax effect being below the specified threshold, the Circular No. 3/2018 was applied to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The total deletions made by the CIT(A) were upheld, resulting in the allowance of the assessee's appeals and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.