TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,00,000/- made by AO as unexplained receipts. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the agriculture land in question is rural agriculture land instead of urban agriculture land as held by the AO that it is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee's Cross Objection read as under:- 1. On the facts and circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minating material found during the course of search. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of cross objection. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Swastik Pipes group of cases on 28.8.2008. The assessee was covered in the search. Notice u/s. 153A was issued on 30.12.2009, in response to which the assessee filed return on 29.1.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 12,96,251/-. Notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 10.2.2010 and 26.7.2010 and u/s. 142(1) ON 11.8.2010. These notices were duly complied with and necessary details / clarifications were filed. The case was assessed at an income of Rs. 59,06,457/- after making certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch in respect of such addition. He further stated that the additions have no relation with any incriminating material found and undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search and as such are bad in law being beyond the scope of jurisdiction u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following orders/judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the ITAT. i) Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. passed in ITA No. 175-177/Del/2015 dated 30.10.2015. ii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18 vs. Ms. Lata Jain 2016 (5) TMI 1273- Delhi High Court. iii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18, vs. Ms. Lata Jain 2016 (5) TMI 292-Delhi High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment proceedings were pending for the year under consideration and the AO was not justified in disturbing the concluded assessment without there being any incriminating material being found in search. In fact, in the entire assessment order, the AO has not referred to any seized material or other material for the year under consideration having being found during the course of search in the case of assessee, leave alone the question of any incriminating material for the year under appeal. We also find that the case law cited by the Ld. CIT(DR) in the case of Filatex India Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) is not relevant to the present case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the action of the AO is based upon conjectures and surmises and hence, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an ITA Nos. 707, 709 and 713 of 2014 of assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to ....