TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds raised in AY. 2004-05 are extracted as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed investment, unexplained loans and unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence filed by the Assessee in contravention of R.46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in following the decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) SB to hold that no addition can be made in the unabated assessments U/s. 153A in the absence of incriminating mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record so as to examine the contentions. 4. Briefly stated, Assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the manufacturing of sponge iron. There was a search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act [Act] conducted on 29-01-2009 along with another group company of Sunder Steel Cases. Assessee was issued notice u/s. 153A and in response, Assessee filed returns of income by admitting NIL income. In the course of proceedings u/s. 153A, Assessing Officer (AO) in all the years examined the share application money and unsecured loans received and in the absence of details, the said amounts were brought to tax in respective assessment years. Thus, in all the impugned assessment years, the assessments were completed tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reement which was before the date of incorporation. Since the advance of Rs. 2 Lakhs was paid prior to incorporation of company, company is not responsible for the investment. Subsequently, the seller executed one receipt dt. 4th August, 2003 stating that they had received sums aggregating to Rs. 6 Lakhs till 4th August, 2003 and they have to receive a further sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs only. Company however, admitted income of Rs. 4 Lakhs presuming that previous promoters had paid the admitted sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs after the formation of company so that assessment can be closed and protracted legal proceedings can be avoided, even though said sum was not the income of the company. It was contended that agreement of sale was executed by the promoters ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this issue. Assessee only stated the dates and amounts involved and entire information was available with AO consequent to the search and seizure proceedings. Since the Revenue has raised the ground only on the issue of additional evidence and since we do not find any additional evidence being taken/ admitted by the CIT(A), there is no merit in the Revenue's ground. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 6. That leaves us with the main additions of unsecured loans and share application money brought to tax by the AO in the assessments, consequent to non-furnishing of information by Assessee. Ld. CIT(A) on the objections raised by Assessee, deleted the same stating that additions cannot be made in the assessment without any reference to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated, the assessment u/s. 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material. However, this opinion that not upheld by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT [346 ITR 106] (supra) which was rendered on 15-12-2011 much before the order of the CIT(A). In fact, CIT(A) is bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court order. Not only the jurisdictional High Court, but also the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Courts (supra) have held that for completing the assessments u/s. 153A/153C, AO could take into consideration material other than what was available during the search and seizure operation. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the order of CIT(A) cannot be upheld. 9. It is one ....