2022 (4) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Sec. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016 for assessment year 2009-10. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Order U/s.263 is bad in law, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and therefore it is liable to be cancelled. 2. That the Principal CIT erred in law and on facts in holding that the order u/s. 143(3) Dt 29.12.2016 passed by Dy. CIT, Central Circle : I (3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and in setting aside the same from framing fresh assessment. 3. That the order u/s 263 is further vitiated in law in as much as the learned CIT while passing order opted to ignore the important facts submitted in letter Dt. 30.01.2018 so as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding forex loss. Proceedings u/s.263 is beyond limitation and order u/s.263 is therefore liable to be cancelled." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 26.09.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. Original assessment was thereafter framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2011. 3. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted u/s.132(1) of the Act on 12.02.2015 and the assessee was therein covered. Notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In compliance the assessee e-filed its return of income on 05.07.2016....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce by them to drive home their respective contentions. Before us the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act on two fold grounds, viz. (i). that now when no incriminating material in the case of the assessee was found during the course of search proceedings conducted u/s.132(1) of the Act, and resultantly, no addition as regards the unabated assessment in its case for the year under consideration could have been made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Pr. CIT could not have held the order passed by him as erroneous, for the reason, that he had failed to make any such addition which he was otherwise divested of his jurisdicti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2017) 251 Taxmann 22 (Bom). Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573( Del.). In the aforementioned cases, it had been observed by the Hon'ble High Courts that in case of an unabated assessment the scope of addition/disallowance to be made u/s.153A of the Act would be restricted to the "incriminating material" found during the course of search proceedings. It was further observed that if no incriminating material is found then, the Assessing Officer can only reiterate the completed assessment without making any further addition/disallowances. Our aforesaid view is also supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (i). Principal CIT Vs. Vikas Gutgut....