Tribunal emphasizes need for tangible evidence in tax appeals under Section 153A

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition could be made under Section 153A. The Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence to support any addition, reiterating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of notice issued under Section 153A and the consequent assessment order.
2. Validity of assessment in absence of incriminating material found during search.
3. Reliance on the fourth proviso to Section 153A for extending the limitation period.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
5. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of net long-term capital gain.

Summary:

1. Legality of Notice Issued Under Section 153A:
The assessees argued that the notice issued under Section 153A and the consequent assessment order were illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, or void for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that a search and seizure operation was conducted, and the case was notified to the Central Circle. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 153A and completed the assessment.

2. Validity of Assessment in Absence of Incriminating Material:
The assessees contended that no incriminating material was found during the search, and thus, no addition could be made. The Tribunal emphasized that no reference to any incriminating material was made by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments.

3. Reliance on the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A:
The CIT(A) relied on the fourth proviso to Section 153A, which allows for assessment beyond six years if the Assessing Officer has evidence of income escaping assessment amounting to fifty lakh rupees or more. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer neither possessed books of accounts nor other documents or evidence showing escapement of income represented in the form of assets.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessees argued that the CIT(A) relied on statements obtained behind their back without affording an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the statements of brokers did not specifically mention the assessees and that no incriminating material was found during the search.

5. Addition Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,96,11,906/- under Section 68, based on the alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search and was based solely on statements and reports not directly related to the assessees.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition could be made under Section 153A. The Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence to support any addition, reiterating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

---