TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search and not abated? " 3. It appears from the materials on record that a search action under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 was undertaken in the group cases of Master Group in F.Y. 2012-13 on 03.01.2013. In such circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, a notice was issued to the assessee dated 19.11.2013. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 12,74,710/-. Thereafter, the order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2015 came to be passed determining the total income of Rs. 5,59,10,869/-. 4. It further appears that in the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that for the A.Y. 2009-10, bad debts of Rs. 94,14,513/- were written off. The auditor in his audit report stated that although the bad debts of the aforesaid amount were written off, yet no relevant records or details were furnished. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the bad debts of Rs. 94,14,513/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee being dissatisfied with the assessment order, pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there was unaccounted profit and on facts in holding that there was unacco8untd profit of Rs. 3,83,40,000/- in respect of lands at Tragad Village which was the diversion to the books of RJD Impex Pvt.Ltd.(correct is M/s Raja Corporation) was a sham transaction as well as explain satisfactorily the impugned amount as well as make request for admisison of additional evidence. 4.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 94,14,513/-. 4.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 94,14,513/-. It is, therefore, prayed that the additiona/disallowance of Rs. 3,83,40,000/- & Rs. 94,14,513/- and validity u/s. 153A(1) upheld by the CIT(A) may kindl be deleted." 10. The Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee held as under:- "53. At the outset we note that the technical issue raised by the assessee in ground 1 & 2 challenging the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act is identical to the issue raised in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e clear as the same provides that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to the six assessment years referred to in the subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under subsection (1) isannulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says that such revival shall cease to have effect if such order of annulment is set aside. Thus, any proceeding of assessment or reassessment falling within the six assessment years prior to the search or requisitionstands abated and the total income of the assessee is required to be determined under section 153A of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 18.11.2010. In terms of section 153B, the assessment was required to be completed within a period of two years from the end of the financial yearin which the search came to be carried out, namely, on orbefore 31st March, 2012. Here, insofar as the impugned addition is concerned, the notice in respect thereof came to be issued on 19.12.2011 seeking an explanation from the assessee. The assessee gave its response by reply dated 21.12.2011 calling upon the Assessing Officer to provide copies of statements recorded on oath of Shri Rohit P. Modi and Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi during the search as well as the copies of the documents upon which the department placed reliance for the purpose of making the proposed addition as well as the copy of the explanation given by Shri Rohit P. Modiand Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi regarding the on-money received, copies of the assessment orders in case of saidpersons and also requested the Assessing Officer to permit him to cross-examine the said persons. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the said persons, however, they were out of sta....