TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds of appeal are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under sec.153A r.w.s 143(3). 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition in proceedings u/s.153A, after having himself given a findings that no incriminating material was found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an offer made by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional offer, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the ALV of property at Lonavala at Rs. 60,000/- and that of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs. 41,000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary. 5. The appellant submits the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found in the course of search, and that the original assessment u/s.143(3) had not abated. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an addition on the basis of an offer made by the appellant during assessment, ignoring the fact that appellant made a conditional offer, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the ALV of property at Lonavala at Rs. 60,000/- and that of flat in building called Kalpana at Rs. 45,000/-. The appellant submits the ALV adopted is excessive and arbitrary. 5. The appellant submits the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation as the Annual Letting Value. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time, 5. In ITA No. 4637/MUM/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 the Grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wealth tax assessment under section 16(3) of the Act dated 24-03-2008, 29-12-2009, 16-12-2010 and 20-12-2011 for all the impugned assessment years. Thus as on the date of search i.e. 20.03.2012, all these four assessment years become unabated. 8. The ld. AR before us has challenged the assessment proceedings framed under section 153A of the Act in ground no. 1 & 2 on the reasoning that the additions made by the AO in the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 represents the items of the regular assessments being deemed rent under section 23(1) of the Act with respect to two properties located at Upper Amarwadi, Lonavala and Flat No. 8, Kalpana, Mumbai respectively. These properties were disclosed in the income tax returns and wealth tax returns. 9. As per the ld. AR there was no incriminating material found in respect of the unabated proceedings. Therefore no additions can be made. The assessments were framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act after making addition on account of deemed rent but the same were reduced by the ld. CIT-A. The details of the amount disputed in different assessment years are as under: S. No. Assessment Year Addition u/s. Amount (R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act provides for abatement of pending proceedings as on date of search. It is not is dispute that the assessment for the assessment year 2006- 07 up to 2009-10 falls under the ambit of unabated assessment as on the date of search. There is no differentiation as found in the intent of the legislature to differentiate whether the assessments were originally framed u/s 143(1) or 143(3) or 147 of the Act. Therefore, if any incriminating material is not found during the course of search related to those concluded years, the Act does not confer any power on the Ld. AO to disturb the finding given thereon and income determined thereon as finality has already been reached and no proceeding was pending on the date of search. 11.1 We find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Shiva) Ltd. and All Cargo Global Logistics ltd. reported in 374 ITR 645 has decided the impugned issue in favor of the assessee. The relevant extract is reproduced below: "Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound that he agreed for certain addition during the assessment proceedings. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT and others reported in 310 ITR 310 wherein it was held as under: "31. Having said so, we must observe that the Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected (see S.R. Kosti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj.), CPA Yoosuf v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355(Bom.). 32. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubr....