Section 153A assessments invalid without incriminating material from search operations, additions based on filed returns insufficient

The ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search operations. The Assessing Officer made additions based on unsecured loans, cash credits, expenditure, and customer advances disclosed in the assessee's original financial statements and returns. Since these additions were based on the assessee's own filed accounts rather than seized or incriminating material, the ITAT quashed the Section 153A assessments for all four years, following the SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell. The appeals were allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of incriminating material.
2. The mechanical nature of approval under Section 153D for framing assessments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153A:

The primary issue in these appeals was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) could assume jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act to make assessments in the absence of incriminating material found during a search conducted under Section 132. The assessee contended that the assessments for the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were framed without any incriminating material, making such assessments unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the issue of framing assessments under Section 153A based on incriminating or non-incriminating material is a purely legal issue and goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell, which held that in the absence of incriminating material, the AO cannot assess or reassess the income for completed or unabated assessments. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were based on the financials filed with the original returns, and no incriminating material was found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153A for all four years, as they were not based on any incriminating material.

2. Mechanical Approval under Section 153D:

The second issue raised was regarding the approval process under Section 153D, which the assessee argued was mechanical in nature. Although the Tribunal acknowledged the issue, it refrained from adjudicating on this point because the assessments under Section 153A had already been quashed due to the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal noted that since the primary jurisdictional issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, the question of mechanical approval under Section 153D became academic and did not require further adjudication.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all four appeals, quashing the assessments under Section 153A due to the absence of incriminating material. The issue regarding the mechanical nature of approval under Section 153D was left open and dismissed as academic. The decision underscores the necessity of incriminating material for assessments under Section 153A in cases of unabated assessments and highlights the importance of non-mechanical approval processes under Section 153D.

---