TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether, in assessments under section 153A, additions under section 68 and related disallowances can be made only on the basis of "incriminating material" and what constitutes material "found in the course of search".
1.2 Whether the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer (digital Tally data seized from the assessee, search/survey findings from Kolkata Directorate, statements of alleged entry operators and enquiries under section 131) qualify as material "found in the course of search" for the purpose of section 153A.
1.3 Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in deleting additions on a technical ground (absence of incriminating material) without examining the merits of additions treating loans/advances from certain companies as accommodation entries and disallowing related commission/interest.
1.4 Whether the matter required remand to the First Appellate Authority to verify the assessee's claim of repayment of loans/advances and to re-adjudicate the nature of such transactions on merits.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 & 2 - Scope of "incriminating material" and "found in the course of search" in section 153A; applicability to the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer
Legal framework (as discussed)
2.1 The Court noted that section 153A refers to "books of account or other documents or such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" found during the search having a bearing on the total income, but the term "incriminating" is not defined in the Act.
2.2 The Court referred to the decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. for the principle that, in the absence of incriminating material found in the course of search, no addition can be made in section 153A assessments for completed years.
2.3 The Court referred to the decision in K. Krishnamurthy v. DCIT, wherein it was held that the expression "found in the course of search" is of wide amplitude and does not mean documents found only in the assessee's premises; documents collected from third parties and enquiries conducted as a result or continuation of the search also fall within that expression.
Interpretation and reasoning
2.4 The Court adopted the dictionary meaning of "incriminating" as "making it seem that someone is guilty, especially of a crime" and held that any evidence found during the search which has a bearing on the income of the assessee and which is not correctly disclosed to the Department would be "incriminating material".
2.5 The Court clarified that incriminating material can be in any form: a document, an entry in books of account, an asset, a statement on oath, or the absence of a fact earlier claimed but not found during search; any fact or evidence suggesting that documents/transactions claimed or submitted in earlier proceedings were not genuine and fulfill the ingredients of undisclosed income constitutes incriminating material.
2.6 Applying K. Krishnamurthy, the Court held that the expression "found in the course of search" covers: (i) materials seized from the assessee during search, (ii) materials found in search/survey of other individuals (e.g., entry operators), and (iii) materials unearthed during further investigation/enquiry or interrogation of third parties undertaken as a result and in continuation of the search.
2.7 On facts, the Court recorded that the Assessing Officer relied on: (i) digital Tally data seized from the assessee showing large credits by way of unsecured loans and amounts against Banakhat from eleven Kolkata-based companies, (ii) database and materials arising from search/survey by Kolkata Directorate on entry operators and shell companies, (iii) the statement of an entry operator explaining modus operandi, and (iv) enquiry reports obtained under commission issued under section 131 revealing that the companies were not found at their registered addresses and directors disowned knowledge of the transactions.
2.8 The Court held that all these materials were either directly found in search at the assessee's premises or were collected as a result and in continuation of the search, or pursuant to enquiries triggered by the search; hence, they fell within the ambit of "found in the course of search".
2.9 Consequently, the Court held that the finding of the First Appellate Authority that no incriminating material was found or that additions were made de hors incriminating material was incorrect.
Conclusions
2.10 The Court concluded that: (i) incriminating material under section 153A encompasses any evidence found during or in continuation of search that bears on income not correctly disclosed; (ii) the expression "found in the course of search" includes materials gathered from third parties and enquiries carried out as a consequence of search; and (iii) in the present case, the documents, digital data, statements and enquiry reports relied upon by the Assessing Officer constituted material "found in the course of search" and were capable of supporting additions under section 153A.
2.11 The deletion of additions by the First Appellate Authority solely on the technical ground of absence of incriminating material was therefore erroneous and was reversed.
Issue 3 - Failure of the First Appellate Authority to examine additions on merits; need to consider nature of loans/advances and related commission/interest
Interpretation and reasoning
2.12 The Court noted that the First Appellate Authority did not examine the factual merits of the additions and confined itself only to the "technical" ground based on alleged absence of incriminating material.
2.13 The Assessing Officer had treated the entire sums received from eleven Kolkata-based companies as accommodation entries and made additions under section 68, along with separate addition for commission (2% of such entries) and disallowance of related interest.
2.14 The assessee contended that: (i) advances received against Banakhat were subsequently refunded because the sale did not materialise, and (ii) loans were repaid to the respective parties in subsequent years. A year-wise chart was produced showing loans/advances received and repayments made, supported by ledger accounts and confirmations.
2.15 The Court observed that the assessee's claim of repayment-namely, receipt of Rs. 24.15 crores in A.Y. 2013-14 (from nine companies) with Rs. 4.15 crores repaid in the same year, and further receipt of Rs. 10 crores in A.Y. 2014-15 with total repayment of Rs. 21,09,64,071/- in that year-had not been verified by either the Assessing Officer or the First Appellate Authority.
2.16 The Court held that the fact of whether the loans/advances were fully repaid is directly relevant to characterising the nature of the transactions as accommodation entries. The Court observed that if the loans and advances taken from the eleven Kolkata-based companies were in fact repaid, the treatment of such transactions as accommodation entries would require re-examination.
Conclusions
2.17 The Court held that the First Appellate Authority erred in not adjudicating the merits of the additions under section 68 and related additions towards commission and disallowance of interest.
2.18 The Court directed that the matter be remanded to the First Appellate Authority to: (i) verify, on the basis of evidence, the claim of repayment of loans and advances received from the eleven companies, and (ii) thereafter, re-adjudicate the additions under section 68 and consequential additions/disallowances on merits, in accordance with law and in light of the Court's observations on incriminating material and material "found in the course of search".
Issue 4 - Application to both assessment years and final disposition
2.19 The Court noted that the grounds raised and the factual matrix for A.Y. 2014-15 were identical to those for A.Y. 2013-14.
2.20 It therefore applied its reasoning and directions for A.Y. 2013-14 mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2014-15, setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority for that year as well and remanding the matter for examination of the additions on merits.
2.21 In consequence, for both assessment years, the appeals of the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the First Appellate Authority to re-adjudicate the additions on merits after necessary factual verification.
TaxTMI 
