Assessment orders under Section 153A invalid without incriminating material found during search operations

ITAT Chandigarh held that assessment orders u/s 153A were invalid where no incriminating material was found during search relating to the assessee. The Tribunal applied s 153C provisions, ruling that material found during third-party searches cannot be used for s 153A assessments unless s 153C proceedings are pending. Multiple additions were deleted including deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) based on current account transactions, property valuation differences relying solely on DVO reports without corroborating evidence, and stock shortage claims due to flawed inventory taking excluding work-in-progress. The Tribunal partially allowed appeals regarding circular transactions within group companies, restricting s 80IC deductions on artificial turnover inflation but deleting commission additions. Bad debt claims were allowed despite not being written off in books. Purchases from alleged bogus parties were held genuine based on proper documentation and TDS/GST compliance. Jewellery additions were deleted considering family status and community customs. Assessment orders were quashed due to mechanical s 153D approvals.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether additions can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of any incriminating material found during search under Section 132.Whether credits/loans received from a closely held company exceeding remuneration/payments constitute deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.Validity of additions based on difference in valuation of immovable property as per District Valuation Officer (DVO) report vis-à-vis books of account under Sections 69C and 115BBE.Validity of enhancement under Section 251(1) regarding alleged understatement of investment in property.Legality of directions to Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 based on CIT(A)'s directions under Section 150.Whether shortage of stock found during search can be treated as undisclosed sales and additions made accordingly.Justifiability of additions based on estimation of commission/profit at a fixed percentage on alleged unaccounted sales and purchases.Denial of deduction under Section 80IC on account of alleged bogus sales and purchases within group entities.Validity of additions under Section 68 and disallowance under Section 80IC on account of alleged bogus transactions with third parties.Classification of payments made by a company for construction of residential houses of directors/substantial shareholders as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) or income from other sources.Additions under Section 69C read with Section 115BBE on account of difference in valuation of residential property as per DVO report and books of account.Allowability of bad debts claimed as deduction when written off in books in subsequent years.Validity of additions under Section 69C on account of purchases from parties treated as bogus due to non-response to statutory notices.Applicability of extended period of limitation in reopening assessments under Section 153A.Validity of transfer orders under Section 127 dated 30.03.2018 without sanction of law.Correctness of carry forward and set-off of MAT credit against demand raised consequent to impugned additions.Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC on subsidy income claimed in Income Tax Return (ITR).Justifiability of additions on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search.Validity of statutory approval under Section 153D granted mechanically and without application of mind.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

Issue 1: No addition can be made under Section 153A where assessments stood completed and not abated on date of search and no incriminating material was found during search; statements recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative material do not constitute incriminating material. The assessments under Section 153A in such cases are quashed.Issue 2: Transactions constituting a running current account with mutual giving and taking of advances between shareholder and closely held company do not attract deemed dividend provisions under Section 2(22)(e). Additions on deemed dividend are restricted to peak credit balances after considering repayments.Issue 3: Additions based solely on DVO's valuation report without any corroborative incriminating material or rejection of books of accounts are not sustainable. Minor differences in valuation (less than 10%) are insufficient to justify additions under Sections 69C and 115BBE.Issue 4: Enhancement under Section 251(1) based on difference in valuation of property is not sustainable when based solely on DVO report without incriminating material; direction to AO to reopen assessments for earlier years is set aside.Issue 5: Directions by CIT(A) to AO to initiate reassessment under Sections 147/148 based on DVO report and without incriminating material are quashed.Issue 6: Additions on account of shortage of stock found during search held as undisclosed sales are not sustainable where physical stock-taking is flawed, work-in-progress ignored, and no incriminating material found; additions are deleted.Issue 7: Estimation of commission/profit on alleged unaccounted sales and purchases within group companies is not justified where transactions are circular for turnover inflation; additions on this ground are deleted but profits from such transactions are not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.Issue 8: Additions on account of gross profit on net sales and purchases between group companies are upheld as income from other sources but not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC; netting of transactions to be done by AO.Issue 9: Additions on account of credits from third party held to be not sustainable in absence of incriminating material; issue decided in favour of assessee.Issue 10 & 11: Payments made by company for construction of directors' houses constitute income from other sources (not deemed dividend) when no evidence of benefit to directors is shown; additions under Section 69C limited to difference in valuation as per registered valuer's report; deductions under Section 80IC disallowed on such additions.Issue 12: Bad debts actually becoming bad during the year are allowable as deduction even if written off in books in subsequent years; denial on technical ground of timing of write-off is not justified.Issue 13: Purchases from parties treated as bogus solely due to non-response to notices under Sections 133(6)/131 are not sustainable additions where invoices, payments, and stock records are furnished and no corroborative material is found; additions deleted.Issue 14: Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of incriminating material; issue rendered academic due to quashing of assessments.Issue 15: Transfer orders under Section 127 dated 30.03.2018 without sanction of law are bad in law; issue not pressed and decided against assessee.Issue 16: MAT credit carry forward and set-off issue not pressed; dismissed accordingly.Issue 17: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC on subsidy income and other items not claimed in original ITR is academic due to quashing of assessments; liberty to raise issue at appropriate stage.Issue 18: Jewellery found during search can be considered reasonably possessed based on family income, status, and past savings; additions on unexplained investment in jewellery deleted.Issue 19: Approval under Section 153D granted mechanically, without application of mind or examination of seized material, is invalid; assessments based on such approval are quashed.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Sections 132, 153A, 153C, 153D, 2(22)(e), 69C, 115BBE, 251(1), 147/148, and 80IC, along with judicial precedents from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals.It emphasized that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search; statements under Section 132(4) without corroboration do not suffice, citing Supreme Court decisions including Pr. CIT vs. Abhiser Buildwell (2023) and others.Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) applies strictly to loans or advances given gratuitously; running current accounts with mutual transactions and personal guarantees securing loans fall outside its ambit, supported by various High Court and Tribunal rulings.Valuation reports by DVO are treated as opinion evidence and cannot alone justify additions unless corroborated by other incriminating material or rejection of books, following precedents including Sargam Cinema vs. CIT and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO.Approvals under Section 153D must be granted after due application of mind and examination of seized material; mechanical approvals without scrutiny invalidate assessments, supported by decisions such as PCIT vs. Shreelekha Damani and Inder International vs. ACIT.The Court recognized the principle of telescoping to avoid double additions and upheld the principle that taxability or deductibility depends on true nature of transactions and not merely on accounting treatment.It noted the importance of industry-specific considerations in valuation and stock-taking, rejecting arbitrary estimations not supported by evidence.The Court acknowledged the binding nature of CBDT circulars advising against reliance solely on confessional statements obtained under duress during search operations.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the Court followed established jurisprudence consistently applied across the appeals.

---