AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Since both the appeals pertains to the same assessee and the issues involved are common these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. IT(SS)A No. 378/Ahd/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11):- 2. The appellant has challenged the disallowance of interest paid of Rs. 3,17,664/- in a search proceeding where no incriminating material found. Under the circumstances the disallowance so made is invalid, without sanction of law and the same is liable to be deleted as the case made out by the appellant before us. 3. The assessee firm engaged in the business of Angadia Services filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 28.06.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 1,74,480/- which was duly processed under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The crux of the argument of the Ld. AR is this that the interest on loans which are recorded in the books of accounts and items of cash credit cannot form the basis of addition in the relevant assessment year where the assessment is not pending and has not been abated since there are items of normal income tax assessment and cannot be subject matter of assessment under Section 153A or 153C. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 387 ITR 0529 which was followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in subsequent Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 a copy of each of the said orders have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was contended that in such a case where the assessment is not pending on the date of search and is unabated, addition could not be made of items of such income unless there is incriminating material found during the course of search. I have considered the facts of the-case and the submission of the appellant as also, the legal position emerging from the various judicial pronouncements including the judgments of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Saumya Construction (P) Ltd [2016] 387 ITR 529 as also, judgments in the case of CIT Central vs Kabul Chawla [2015] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom). The above judgments are followed in several decisions by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by present incumbent in CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad handling Assessments completed by the Central Charge were brought to my notice wherein a similar view is being taken even in year 2018. In view of this factual position and considering the legal position emerging from the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the High Court of Delhi as mentioned above as also, from the judgments of other Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT relied on in the said judgments, I am inclined to agree with the appellant that additions made by the AO in the instant case of unabated assessment is not permissible since they are not made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search . This legal ground no.1 is thus a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made, in other words, when limit for framing assessment as provided u/s. 153 was about to expire, notice had been issued seeking to make proposed addition of Rs. 11,05,51,000/- on basis of the material which was not found during course of search, but on basis of statement of another person-It was admitted position that no incriminating material was found during course of search, however, it was on basis of some material collected by AO much subsequent to search, that additions came to be made-On behalf of revenue, it had been submitted that if any incriminating material was found, notwithstanding that in relation to year under consideration, no incriminating material was found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in ....