TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08, whereby the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of CIT (A) dated 25.01.2016, challenging the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit has been upheld. 2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present appeal is that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was initiated by the investigation wing of the Department on 12.01.2011 in respect of the Saluja group. Cash and jewellery belonging to the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') was also found and seized from the residence of the assessee's father - Mr. Vinod Saluja, in whose name the search warrant of authorization was issued. The satisfaction not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4,97,60,866/-. However, in the subsequent search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 12.01.2012, no incriminating document was found. It has been further submitted that the earlier assessment u/s 143(3), was completed on 18.12.2009, before initiation of action u/s 132 on 12.01.2012 and therefore, the assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of second search on 12.01.2012, consequence of which, the assessment order passed by the A.O. on 14.3.2014, is challenged in this appeal. (ii) It has been further submitted by the Appellant that subsequent to the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the act, assessment u/s 153A/153C was completed on 14.3.2014, at total income of Rs. 16,88,18,170/-, after making additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the above, I agree with the arguments of the appellant and therefore, addition made by the A.O. u/s 68, in absence of any incriminating document/evidence, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, ground no. 3 and 8, are hereby, allowed." 4. With respect to the addition of Rs. 11,90,57,300/-, the CIT (A) made the following observations: "6.5 Findings: The findings are as under: 6.6 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submission, case laws relied upon, remand report of the A.O., rejoinder filed by the appellant and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant, are discussed as under: (i) The addition of Rs. 11,90,57,300/-, on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: "8. In the present case, even no incriminating document was found during the course of search so as to make the addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT (A) in view of these findings did not decided the issue on merit. The above discussion clearly show that department has no case for interference. The Ld. D.r. has not pointed out any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 9. In the result, appeal of the department stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court." 6. The Revenue has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ITAT contending that the AO had correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act. The ITAT....