2018 (8) TMI 1764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3 crores made by the AO on account of share capital/premium. 3. In its cross objection, the assessee has alleged that the CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment order framed u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] since no document, much less incriminating material was found during the course of search. 4. Since the cross objection by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, we take up the cross objection first. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of SMC Power Generation Ltd belonging to SMC Group on 04.08.2011. The A.Y before us is A.Y 2006-07. It would be pertinent to mention here that a sear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed." 8. The ld. DR tried to support the findings of the lower authorities by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayprakash Singh [1996] AIR 1303. However, this judgment is misplaced in as much as in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized with the following question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ....