Assessee's Cross-Objections Accepted, Revenue Appeals Dismissed for Jurisdictional Issues

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years under consideration. The additions made by the AO were deleted, and the assessment orders were set aside due to jurisdictional infirmities and procedural lapses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Non-recording of legally required satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3).
4. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the stipulated time period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,40,69,990/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 on account of unexplained share application money and unsecured loans from Denim Developers Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the AO relied on previous investigations without conducting independent inquiries, and no statement from the entry operator was quoted. The CIT(A) also noted that the Director or Principal Officer of Denim Developers Ltd. was never produced before the AO for examination, and the assessee had cooperated by showing willingness to produce the Director.

Issue 2: Non-recording of Legally Required Satisfaction by the Assessing Officer
The assessee argued that the order passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) was without jurisdiction as the legally required satisfaction was not recorded. However, this ground was not pressed during the hearing and was dismissed as not pressed.

Issue 3: Validity of the Assessment Order Passed under Section 153C Read with Section 143(3)
The assessee contended that the assessment for the year under consideration was not abated as of the date of search, and no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) held that the additions were to be adjudicated on merits, and the issue remained for academic discussion only.

The Tribunal analyzed the legal position and found that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was not pending on the date of search, and the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating documents found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the additions based on a report from the Investigation Wing, which was not considered incriminating material unearthed during the search. Therefore, the additions made under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) were directed to be deleted.

Issue 4: Issuance of Notice under Section 143(2) within the Stipulated Time Period
For AY 2016-17, the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the stipulated time. The Tribunal found that the notice was issued on 30.10.2017, beyond the prescribed limitation period, making the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Hotel Blue Moon and various High Court decisions, holding that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, and any assessment order passed without such notice is null and void.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for all assessment years under consideration. The additions made by the AO were deleted, and the assessment orders were set aside due to jurisdictional infirmities and procedural lapses.

---