TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.O which is not permissible under the provisions of the I.T. Act." I.T.A. No. 3944/DEL/2015 "Whether the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,12,27,860/- made by the A.O u/s 41(1)/68 of the I.T Act despite the facts that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the liabilities of M/s Dashmesh Impex and M/s Abchal Impex were actually paid by M/s Silver Rock Trading LLC Company." 3. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) has allowed the appeals of the assessee deleting the following additions made by the Assessing Officer: (i) A.Y. 2008-09 : Rs. 1,03,73,611/- & Rs. 7,72,665/- (ii) A.Y. 2009-10 : Rs. 1,12,27,860/- 4. The assessee is an individual, being a partner in the firm M/s Dashmesh Impex and having a proprietary concern, namely Abchal Impex. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 29.09.2008 declaring an income of Rs. 3,30,350/- and for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 22.02.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 3,72,430/-. In the present assesse's case asset/cash found by DRI on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment u/s 153A of the Act if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search and in the present case, addition is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search as is evident from Pg. 2 Para 3 of the assessment order that the addition is made on the basis of observations made during the course of assessment proceedings and not on the basis of any incriminating material. This issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 2817/Del/2012 dated 09.10.2018. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573, wherein the relevant findings are in Para 37 quoted as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immedia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 82. * Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 * Pr. CIT v. RSA Digi Prints in ITA Nos. 469, 471, 504 and 505 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017 Gujarat High Court. * Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. in ITA No. 254 of 2016 dated 24.08.2016 Calcutta High Court * CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346 * CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 645 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that before the CIT(A) the assessee has duly raised legal grounds and grounds on merits of the case. Though, the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the merits of the case, however, the legal ground and arguments raised by the assessee have been dismissed by the CIT(A). Therefore, considering the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the assessee is entitled to defend the order of the CIT(A) on the issued decided against the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Edward Keventer (Successors) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi), where the Hon'ble Court has decided the issue of the rights of the respondent in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Logitronics (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2011] in 333 ITR 386 (Delhi) The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of E.N. Gopakumar Vs CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala) with regard to validity of proceedings u/s 153A wherein following decisions were considered: * CIT V. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573/[2015l 234 Taxman 300/61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) (para 4). * CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom.) (para 4) * Principal CIT v. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 571 (Delhi) (para 4) * CIT V. Lancy Constructions [2016] 383 ITR 168 (Kar.) (para 4) * CIT V. ST. Francies Clay Decor Tiles [2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Ker.) (para 5) * CIT v. Promy Kuriakose [2016] 386 ITR 597 (Ker.) (para 5). The Ld. DR also relied upon the following decisions: 1. Dr. A. V. Sreekumar Vs CIT T20181 90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) 2. CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 367 ITR 517 (Allahabad) 3. CIT Vs Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson Alld. TITA No. 270 of 20141 (Allahabad) 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. As regards Rule 27 application filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry creditors of two business concerns; namely, M/s Dashmesh Impex (the partnership firm in which the appellant is one of the partners) and M/s Abchal Impex (the appellant's proprietary concern) have taken over by the appellant as individual through the journal entries passed in the books of accounts of M/s Dashmesh Impex and M/s Abchal Impex by crediting his capital account and debiting the corresponding creditors/M/s Silver Rock Trading LLC Company accounts. The contra entries were passed by the appellant in his personal capital account (crediting the personal capital account and debiting corresponding capital accounts appearing in the books of M/s Dashmesh Impex and M/s Abchal Impex). It is worth mentioning here that the purchases made by M/s Dashmesh Impex and M/s Abchal Impex from various parties in past were not paid in time by these business concerns. However, these liabilities were paid by M/s Silver Rock Trading LLC Company, wherein the appellant is having 25% share. M/s Silver Rock Trading LLC is a Dubai based Company. The trading liabilities of M/s Dashmesh Impex and M/s Abchal Impex were actually paid in time indirectly through M/s Silver Rock Trading LLC. The p....