Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal reverses income tax addition, dismisses appeal on lack of substantial legal question</h1> <h3>ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi Versus M/s. Saluja Construction Co. Ltd.</h3> ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi Versus M/s. Saluja Construction Co. Ltd. - TMI Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, Addition to taxable income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, Application of principles in completed assessments without incriminating material.Condonation of delay in filing the appeal: An application was filed seeking condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned as the respondent did not oppose the prayer made in the application.Addition to taxable income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The Assessing Officer added Rs. 3,50,00,000 to the taxable income of the respondent under Section 68 of the Act, considering it as undisclosed income discovered during a search and seizure operation at the respondent's premises. The Tribunal held that without incriminating material, no addition could have been made by the AO as it was a case of completed assessment.Interpretation of Section 153A of the Act: Notices under Section 153A were issued, and the assessment for the relevant Assessment Year was completed. The Tribunal concluded that without incriminating material found during the search, no further addition to the income was warranted under Section 153A. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the judgment in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell.Application of principles in completed assessments without incriminating material: The Tribunal held that in completed assessments without incriminating material, no further addition to the income is justified. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.