Court allows delayed appeals questioning ITAT order on incriminating material search. Deletions upheld, additions dismissed.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 Versus M/s. Meroform India Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 Versus M/s. Meroform India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:
Delay in re-filing appeals, correctness of ITAT order upholding CIT(A) decision, incriminating material for re-opening assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applicability of CIT v. Kabul Chawla judgment, expenses incurred during the normal course of business, statement recorded during survey under Section 133A, purchases from specific entities, cross-examination of witnesses, concurrence of CIT(A) and ITAT findings, substantial question of law.

Delay in re-filing appeals:
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals as explained in the applications, allowing them.

Correctness of ITAT order upholding CIT(A) decision:
The Revenue filed appeals against a common impugned order regarding Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. The main issue raised was the correctness of the ITAT order upholding the CIT(A) decision that no incriminating material was found against the Assessee during the search, hence not warranting re-opening of assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Incriminating material for re-opening assessments:
The ITAT found that no incriminating material was found during the search, leading to the conclusion that the additions made under Section 153A for certain Assessment Years were beyond the scope of assessment.

Applicability of CIT v. Kabul Chawla judgment:
The judgment in CIT v. Kabul Chawla was cited, and it was held that since no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the Revenue for certain Assessment Years were not valid under Section 153A of the Act.

Expenses incurred during the normal course of business:
For specific Assessment Years, the ITAT found that the expenses shown in the Assessee's books were incurred during the normal course of business, leading to the deletion of these additions by the CIT(A).

Statement recorded during survey under Section 133A:
A statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A regarding the Assessee issuing bogus bills was brought to the Court's attention. However, the ITAT noted that the statement was made behind the Assessee's back without cross-examination, leading to concurrence with the CIT(A)'s findings.

Purchases from specific entities:
The ITAT examined purchases from specific entities, such as M/s Nitin Enterprises and M/s Kiran Furnitures, and concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO for certain Assessment Years.

Concurrence of CIT(A) and ITAT findings:
Both the CIT(A) and ITAT provided detailed reasons for their findings, leading to the Court concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order.

Substantial question of law:
Based on the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT, the Court dismissed the appeals as no substantial question of law was found to arise from the impugned order.