TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtner in a concern some investment is required. III) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in law as well as facts in ignoring the statement of the Shri Pritam Beria, wherein he has admitted that he was partner in Siddha Projects for 4 to 5 years. IV) That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the grounds and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case." 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. For adjudication purpose we will take up the facts in IT(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2022 for AY 2014-15 and our decision in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis on all the remaining appeals. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on12.09.2017 at GPT Group which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of concrete sleeper for railways, hospital, manufacturing of SG cast iron shoulders. The assessee was also covered in search. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e discussion, it is clear that Shri Pritam Beria had used its concern for fulfilling his obligation being a partners in Siddha Projects and the capital contribution required to be paid by him routed in the books of Siddha's Group through his group concern in form of Unsecured loan and booking. Further, it is fact that the concern which was used for providing unsecured loan & booking money in to Siddha Project has no worth. Therefore, it is clear that Shri Pritam Beria had used its group concern to accommodate his unaccounted money. Accordingly, after taking in to consideration of facts available on record, daywise entry of loan & booking money, peak of investment has been prepared and the peak amount as on end of financial year is taken as undisclosed investment of Shri Pritam Beria and the same is added to his total income. 9.1 As discussed in the above table, for the year under consideration, it is found that the peak of the investment in the books of Siddha Group's from the assessee through his group concern was of Rs. 7,30,00,000/-.In course of the assessment proceeding assessee was asked to explain as to why the peak for this year shall not be added in his hand as undisclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (Delhi), PCIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 571 (Delhi) concluded the appellate proceedings deleting the additions made by ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. D/R vehemently argued referring to the finding of ld. AO and also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Param Dairy Ltd. SLP Appeal (C) No. 13775 of 2021 dated 20.09.2021. 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions filed before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently argued supporting the finding of ld. CIT(A), judgments and decisions referred therein and also summarized the contentions in the following manner: "1) For Assessment Year 2014-15 Return of income filed by assessee on 11.06.2014 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The last date for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was September 2015. No proceedings u/s 143(3) or 147 of the Income Tax Act was pending on the date of search being 12.09.2017. Therefore, since no proceedings were pending and the assessment was already completed this was an unabated assessment. In view of judicial pronouncements relied upon in the written submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bring any material on record to corroborate that the assessee in any manner participated in extending loan I booking money to Siddha Group. There has been no substantive evidence on record to corroborate the findings of AO. The findings of AO that assessee had advanced loan I booking money from his undisclosed sources is merely based on surmises and conjectures. It is well settled legal proposition that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot takes place of evidence. There is no material to back the allegation of the AO. The assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative. The onus is on the AO to substantiate that assessee had advanced loan I booking money from his undisclosed sources to make addition u/s 69 of the Act. 4) The transactions of loan / booking advance was made by the respective companies from their own sources of funds reflected in their Balance Sheet. The repayments made by Siddha Group companies also happened between them and assessee was not a party to these transactions. The assessee had filed ledger copies, Audited Accounts of all the parties whose names are appearing in the assessment order. Confirmation was also filed to evidence that the transactions between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in its books of accounts but still he is a partner. Similarly, ld. AO also could not dispute the fact that in various companies run by Siddha Group the assessee's name is not appearing in any of the companies investing in the Siddha Projects. The alleged addition made u/s 69 of the Act by ld. AO is purely based on the statement given at the time of search on 12.09.2017. We also notice that the incriminating material referred to by ld. AO do not contain any reference to the assessee nor any undisclosed income in the name of the assessee is said to be appearing in any of the seized material. 11. Further, we notice that ld. CIT(A) considering these facts specially the retraction statement of the assessee given in the affidavit sworn in within three days of the date of search, no reference to any incriminating material relating to the assessee found during the course of search and also considering the fact that all the alleged investments have come from various companies/LLP/Legal entities duly assessed to tax and have been received by Siddha Group of companies/LLP/business concerns which are also duly assessed to tax concluded that unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act was uncal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advance money paid, to various concerns of Siddha Group. All the transactions referred to in various seized documents under the identification marks PB-1 to PB-3 were duly disclosed in the Audited Financial Statements of the respective companies, Income Tax Returns were duly filed in respect of all those companies and all statutory obligations were duly discharged by the respective companies from time to time. In fact these companies from which first unsecured loans and thereafter booking advances were given have been separately scrutinized under the IT Act for the same period. Up until now the entire factual matrix is undisputed either by the appellant or the AO. In fact the AO, on page 2 of his order has recorded that the appellant had stated that all the bank accounts found and/or seized during the search had been duly declared in the regular books of account and requisite returns filed. The AO has neither disputed this fact not brought anything on record to show that this was not true. In paragraph 4C of his order, the AO, while dealing with the books of account and other incriminating documents has unequivocally recorded that all these were shown to the appellant, who, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er there is any merit in the arguments of the appellant, the first question that arises is whether all the assessments had been completed for this assessment year and whether the time for these assessments had already elapsed as on the date on which the search was conducted. I find that the return of income was filed by the appetent on 11.06.2014 for the instant AY 2014-15. Neither the appellant nor the AO have suggested that any proceeding u/s 143(3) had been going on or was pending as on the date of search. The search itself was conducted on 12.09.2017. Therefore as on the date of search, no proceedings had been pending and all the assessments had already been completed or deemed to have been completed. There was no question of any proceedings to get abated due to the search. With the above facts in mind, I see that various judicial pronouncements have held that if all the assessments have been completed as on the date of the search, then any addition or disallowance that is made during assessment proceedings u/s 153A or C, cannot be done other than based upon incriminating material found during the search. This proposition has been reiterated by very many courts across the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r documents, found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment, and (ii) undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search" 3. Reliance for this view can be upon the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd, ITA No. 661/2008 dated 04/08/2016. In this case the question of law was framed as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that all assessments were made under section 143(1) of the I. T. Act, therefore, disallowance as per law were not earlier made. As per Section 153(c) of the I. T. Act assessment is to be made afresh and Income to be assessed or reassessed. The meaning of reassessment is that there is no need to resort to Section 147 of the I. T. Act and to consider the disallowance in the assessment to be made under section 153 of the I. T. Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in misinterpreting the CBDT's Circular No. 7 as the same applies to assessments made u/s. 143(3), 144 or 147 of the I. T. Act where appeals or rect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u Marketing Ltd.] wherein the following views were expressed - "We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre- requisite before power could have been exercised under section 153C read with section 153A. In the case before us, the assessing officer has made disallowances of the expenditure, which were already disclosed, for one reason or the other. But such disallowances were not contemplated by the provisions contained under section 153C read with section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." The Apex court in the case of CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344/250 Taxman 225/84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) has held as under: "(18) In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Bombay High Court rejected the revenue appeal, accepting the findings of the Special Bench as follows: "53. The question now is - what is the scope of assessment or reassessment of total income u/s 153A (1) (b) and the first proviso? We are of the view that for answering this question, guidance will have to be sought from section 132(1). If any books of account or other documents relevant to the assessment had not been produced in the course of original assessment and found in the course of search in our humble opinion such books of account or other documents have to be taken into account while making assessment or reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results:- a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into one and only one assessment for each assessment year shall be made separately on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word "assess" in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word "reassess" to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s/documents received by the AO represent or indicate any undisclosed income or possibility of any income that may be remained undisclosed in the relevant assessment years. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III v. Kabul Chawla: ITA 707/2014, decided on 28th August,2015 [2015-TIOL- 2006-HC-DEL-IT] has held that completed assessments could only be interfered with by the AO on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of the search or requisition of the documents. In absence of any incriminating material, the AO does not have any jurisdiction to interfere in concluded assessments 9. Similar view was taken by the judiciaries in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that proceedings u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction where no assessments were pending at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s 153A and no incriminating evidence was found during the course of search: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) revealed that there was a factual finding that no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns that advanced the moneys. Therefore it is clear that the additions made in the case of the appellant, whatever their merits, did not in any case emanate from any incriminating material found during search. In view of these facts, and respectfully relying upon the various authorities cited above I hold that this addition made by the AO cannot be confirmed and is deleted accordingly. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 Without prejudice to the findings of ground 1, on merits, these grounds, 2,3and 4, agitate the same issue-the addition made by the AO on account of alleged undisclosed investments made by the appellant. The appellant has contended that the AO was wrong and unjustified in treating the unsecured loan and Booking Advance money given by various companies owned by Beria Family to Siddha Group concerns as undisclosed Investment of the appellant. He has further argued that the A.O. was wrong and unjustified in summarily and arbitrarily rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant and acting with a preconceived notion to treat the unsecured loan and Booking Advance money received by various concerns of Siddha Group as undisclosed Investment of the appellant without bringing on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not only bad in law but also beyond the Income Tax Act. It was explained that unsecured loans and flat booking advance was given from various companies. These companies have their separate PAN, they are separate set of books of accounts which are audited by auditors, they file their Income Tax returns separately, and their Annual returns are filed with the Registrar of companies separately annually. The granting of loans are reflected in their audited accounts under the head assets separately. The source of funds for giving loans and booking advances are duly explained by the companies. Almost all of them are subjected to Scrutiny assessments by the Income Tax department. However, the AO has rejected all the contentions of the appellant whimsically. No enquiry either from the respective companies or from SIDDHA group has been done by the AO to conclude that the appellant has made investment from his undisclosed sources through these companies. No material has been brought on record to suggest that the allegations of AO has any truth behind it. It is a settled law that suspicion how so ever strong it may be cannot partake the character of evidence thus the action of AO is bad in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record to support the contentions of the AO. The AO conveniently ignored the fact that moneys were advanced as loans/booking advance by the companies from their respective sources disclosed in their books of accounts. This by no stretch of imagination can lead to conclusion that appellant has used his undisclosed funds through these companies to give money to SIDDHA group." Upon going through the assessment order, the above factual matrix is fully bome out. The AO starts in paragraph 7.1.b of his order by himself admitting that the entire impugned investments, whether made in the form of unsecured loans or Booking Money, were made by the concerns of the appellant and not by the appellant himself. In fact nowhere has it been the case of the AO that the impugned advances of money had been made directly by the appellant. Even the show cause reproduced in the assessment order does not allege that it is the appellant who has advanced any of these amounts. The AO has, throughout the assessment order, not doubted that the said amounts were advanced not by the appellant himself, but by the concerns of the appellant. He has not commented upon whether the fact of these advances/loans h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous concerns into the Siddha Group had actually come from the appellant. The AO was in possession of all the seized material, from a search that had been conducted upon Siddha Group and the appellant as well as the appellant's family members. Even after this search no material connecting the money trail from the appellant either to the concerns or to Siddha Group was unearthed. The AO has recorded that the appellant had, during appeal proceedings, pointed out these facts to him while stating that the various concerns from which the money had been advanced to Siddha Group had an independent legal existence and that the amounts advanced by these concerns could not legally be added in the hands of the appellant. The AO, without assigning any reasons or getting into any discussions for his action, rejected these arguments of the appellant summarily. This can hardly be called a lawful or even reasonable procedure for assessing income. During assessment proceedings, in paragraph 7.5 of the impugned order, it has been recorded that the appellant had explained that the said advances of moneys had been duly recorded in the books of account of the various concerns involved in the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and surmises. In this case, the entire addition has been made based solely upon suspicions and conjectures, with scant interest in adducing any tangible evidence. In view of the above discussions, I cannot find merit in the actions of the AO and the same are not sustained." 12. From perusal of the above finding, ld. CIT(A) and also the plethora of judgments referred therein, we find that the assessee has produced sufficient documents to substantiate that the loan/booking advance of Siddha Group were made by independent entities from their own funds reflected in the audited balance sheet and there is no evidence that such loan/booking advance are funded by the assessee or any other entity acting on behalf of the assessee. There is a complete lack of evidence in the hands of ld. AO which could indicate that the investment made in the Siddha Group in the form of loan and booking money is made by the assessee and the alleged addition seems to be made purely on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. Ld. AO ought to have carried out the exercise in the case of respective companies who gave loan/ booking money to the Siddha Group and the test laid down u/s 68/69 of the Act for the said u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant thereto on such account. Only two additions have been made in the assessment under section 153A of the Act in respect of the said alleged bank account at the HSBC and the disallowance of Rs. 587 under Section 14A of the Act. It was submitted that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is on the basis of a legal interpretation of the said section and is not as a result of any incriminating documents found in course of the search which would warrant such disallowance. (ii) Only other addition in the assessment is the sum of Rs. 4,73,20,709 being the bank balance of the said two companies. For Gingest Marketing Ltd it amounts to Rs. 4,52,40,074 and Masonic Limited amounts to Rs. 20,80,685. Admittedly the said addition has been made without reference to any incriminating material or documents found as a result of the search. The said documents relating to the alleged bank account at HSBC Switzerland were in the possession of the Department prior to the search and the appellant was confronted with them in the course of search proceedings. (iii) AO has alleged that during the Search & Seizure operations, assessee accepted the existence of a/c but stated it was in the name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enches of the Tribunal. It can also be seen from pages 16 to 26 of the order of the CIT(A) set out from the written submissions filed by the Appellant before him. In addition to the above, we may also refer to the following orders : a) In the context of Section 153C of the Act which is para materia to Section 153A of the Act the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 in the context of section 153C of the Act has held as under: "18) In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act." b) Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd, ITA No. 661/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd ITAT No. 264 of 2016, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court took the same view and held: "Subject matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 18th December, 2015 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue registered as ITA No. 1775/Kol/2012 and allowed a cross-objection registered as CO-30/Kol/2013 both pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction under section 153A of the Income Tax Act to reopen the concluded cases when the search and seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. In taking the aforesaid view, the learned Tribunal relied upon a judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla in ITA No. 78.7/2014 dated 28th August, 2014. The aggrieved Revenue has come up in appeal. Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, submitted that more or less an identical view was taken by this Bench in ITA 66112008, [CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd] wherein the following views were expressed ¬ "We are in* agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y other operation under the Act. Thus, we hold that the additions in question are not based on any incriminating material. The Id. CIT(A) on page 38 of his order held as follows: " I have considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order, different case laws was brought on record and appeal orders passed by my predecessors on this legal issue. I find from the assessment order that during the search & seizure operations conducted u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961, incriminating documents/papers were not seized. At least addition made by AO in the assessment order passed u/s 153A1143(3) are not based of any incriminating documents/papers seized during the search operation. It would also not to be out of context to mention here that in this case, on the date of search, no assessment for this year was pending. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio decided by the jurisdictional bench of Kolkata tribunal in case referred above and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Veer Prabhu Marketing Ltd. (Supra) in the light of CBDT's decision of not filing SLP in this 'case in the Supreme Court and keeping in view the Apex Court's decision to dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g material was found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee as the time limit of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired much before the date of conducting search u/s 132 of the Act". 10. Examining facts of the instant appeal in the light of decision of Coordinate Bench, we find that the assessee filed regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act for Assessment Year on 30.09.2008. Assessee's case was not selected for scrutiny, as notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the assessee on or before 30.09.2009. Search was conducted on 29.1.2014. Impugned addition at Rs.2,24,326/- is purely based on information called during the course of search proceedings. In this situation the assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 is to be treated as non-abated assessments for which additions could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench referred above, we direct the Ld. A.O to delete the disallowance of Rs.2,24,326/- and accordingly allow Ground No.1 and consequentially Ground No. 2 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v) In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. (vii)Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law?" After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: "6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed it by an order dated 27th November, 2014. A further appeal was filed by the Assessee before the IT AT. The IT AT, inter alia, found substance in the contention of the Assessee that the assessment under Section 153(A) of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search on the premises of the Assessee was not sustainable in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380ITR 573. 7. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the Revenue whether in the present case anything incriminating has been found when the premises of the Assessee was searched. The answer was in the negative. The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the AEZ Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act was misco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.l 1,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 2006- 07 already stood completed and the returns in these years were accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act and these acceptance of returns processed under Section 143(1) of the Act was construed by the Hon'ble Delhi Court as completion of assessments and this acceptance of return, according to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, could be tinkered with if some incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee. Though, it is not necessary to recite and recapitulate this proposition in other judgments, suffice to say that in the following judgments, unanimous view is taken by Hon'ble High Court as well as ITAT on this point. They concur with the Hon'ble High Court. Just for reference, we note the citations as under:- Sl. No. Particulars 1. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) 2. PCIT -vs.- Kurele Paper Mills (P) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 82 (Delhi) 3. PCIT -vs.- Rashmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITAT 99 of 2019, GA No. 1211 of 2019 (Calcutta HC) 4. CIT -vs.- Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. [2016] 73 taxmann.com 149 (Calcutta) 5. PCIT -vs.- Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. ITAT No. 264 of 2016, GA No. 1929 of 2016 (Calcutta HC) 6. M/s. Mani Square Ltd....