TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action u/s. 133A of the Act on 11.3.2014. Thereafter, it was noticed that certain documents belonging to the assessee were found at the premises of those group concerns. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act was initiated for the years under consideration. The Assessing Officer completed assessment of all the four years under consideration u/s. 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 18.6.2015. 4. The Learned Principal CIT passed revision order u/s. 263 of the Act, as he was of the view that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer are prima facie erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In response to the notices issued by Learned Principal CIT, the assessee submitted that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act in pursuance of search proceedings conducted on 11.3.2014 in the hands of Hiranandani Group of companies. It was submitted that as per the provisions of sec. 153A of the Act, all the four years under consideration fall under the category of "unabated assessments". Accordingly it was submitted that the Assessing Officer could have made any addition to the income already assessed by him i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vii) Non-verification of Rs. 304.41 crores received through debentures issued to an overseas party. All the above said issues have been mentioned by Ld Pr. CIT in AY 2008-09. The issues listed as (ii) to (vii) are mentioned in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. The Ld Pr. CIT placed his reliance on following case laws to support his conclusion that the assessment order passed by the AO in all these years is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue:- (a) Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P) Ltd (172 TTJ 721)(Kol) (b) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan (2016)(384 ITR 200)(SC) (c) Toyota Motor Corpn (2008)(174 Taxman 395)(Delhi) affirmed in (2008)(173 Taxman 458)(SC). (d) Jagdish Kumar Gulati (2004)(139 Taxman 369)(All) (e) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (2000)(109 Taxman 66)(SC) (f) Crompton Greaves Ltd (2017)(82 taxmann.com 246)(Mum-ITAT) Accordingly Ld Pr. CIT held that the assessing officer has failed to carry out necessary enquiries as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and apply correct provisions of the law as discussed by him in the revision order. Since the assessment order has been passed with the approval of Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of the Act shall apply to the assessment made u/s 153A, 153B and 153C of the Act. The Ld D.R submitted that the above said Explanation shall be rendered otiose, if the interpretation given by Ld A.R is accepted. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Ajit Kumar (2018)(404 ITR 526) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above said case that the material or evidence found/collected during the course of survey operations can be utilised for making block assessment u/s 158BB of the Act. He submitted that the power given under sec.153A is wider than the power given u/s 158BB of the Act, i.e., under the provisions of sec.153A, the AO is required to assess total income by combining income already declared and the undisclosed income found during the course of search. However, in the case of assessment made u/s 158BB of the Act, the AO is required to assess only the undisclosed income found during the course of search. Accordingly the Ld D.R submitted that the AO was required to make proper enquiries, which he has failed to so in these years. Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld Pr. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....using Corporation (supra) and it has been held that the AO is entitled to make addition in unabated assessment years only on the basis of incriminating materials found during search. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the search officials did not find any incriminating materials relating to the years under consideration. In these set of fact, the AO could not have made any addition, in the absence of any incriminating material, to the total income returned by the assessee, i.e., not only the matters already concluded in the original assessment proceedings could not be disturbed by the AO except on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search, but also any further addition could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. 12. The question that arises is whether the Ld CIT(A) can hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for not conducting proper enquiry in a situation, when the AO was not empowered to disturb any matters concluded in the original assessment proceedings. This very same question was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the cases relied upon by the....