TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Amritsar (in brevity the AO) the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The bunch of appeals are instituted with common issue related to section 153A, 153D and 153C of the Act. The ld. Counsel only argued on the legal issue of the two bunches of appeals. The legal issues are adjudicated in following manners for all the appeals. 2. The ld. Counsel of the assessee first took the ITA No.618/Asr/2018 as lead case for the cases heard on 18.05.2022 and the ITA No. 86/Asr/2017, 41/Asr/2022 are the lead case for the cases heard on 23.06.2022. 2.1. Before us Mr. Ashray Sarna represented all the matters on behalf of the assessees. The appeal heard on 18.05.2022 was represented on behalf of revenue by Mr. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR and the appeal which were heard on 23.06.2022 was represented by Mr. Rahul Dhawan, CIT DR on behalf of the revenue. 3. The assessee took the following grounds before the ITAT which are extracted as follows: "1. That the order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 10.09.2018 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Central Range Jalandhar u/s 153D of the Act. For other party the satisfaction was noted u/s 153C of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged section 153A of the Act as there is no incriminating material during the assessment proceeding so the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law. The ld. Counsel challenged the approval u/s 153D which is in mechanical manner. So the entire approval U/s 153D of revenue is illegal and the assessments are liable to be quashed. 4.1. Related section 153C of the Act the ld. Counsel specifically mention that the order related section 153C is barred by limitation. The assessment order passed under section 153C/143(3) is time barred. 4.2. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the following grounds which are reproduced hereunder: "1. That the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer dated 22.03.2016, is against the law and facts of this case. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer is erred in law in making addition amounting to Rs.15,52,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of investment in property without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. That as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noted that the Addl. CIT did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his due application of mind. We noted that the Addl. CIT merely approved the letter and the relevant (sic- para) is noted in above paras. We noted that the relevant Para of the above approval letter merely says that "Necessary statutory approval u/s 153D is given to pass the above assessment order as such. Assessment record in this case is returned herewith..."which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on the basis of contents mentioned in the order only on the basis of contents mentioned in the draft assessment order without any application of mind and seized materials were not looked at because that was not available before him at the time of granting of approval to the draft assessment order and other enquiry and examination was never carried out". 5.3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the order of Anurag Mittal vs. DCIT, ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 order dated 06.11.2019, Dilip Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.66 to 71 & 292/CTK/2018 order dated 29.11.2019 and Pr. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defeat on technicalities the object of the statute that is to assess and collect the tax legitimately due under the Act. The mere fact that the Additional Commissioner did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under Section 151(2) when the reasons on the basis of which sanction was sought for could not be assailed. Even an appellate authority is not required to give reasons when it agrees with the finding unless statute or rules so requires. We are supported in our view by the Judgment of the Apex Court in R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1040. In R.P. Bhatt (supra) the Apex Court relied on judgment rendered by a Constitutional Bench in the case of Som Datt Datta v. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 414 wherein their lordships held as follows." iii. Mazinda Singh Kanu vs. CIT (P & H) ITA No. 421/2010 date of order 13.09.2010. iv. Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel vs. DCIT (Guj) Spl Civil Application No.21092/2017. 5.6. We heard the rival submission and are adjudicating the issue after a thoughtful consideration of the submission of both the parties. The ld. Counsel relied of the judgments which are fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to Rs. 15,21,421 - 5500=Rs.l5,15,921 3. That neither Id A.O nor ld CIT(A) has provided sufficient opportunity to substantiate the credit of Rs. Seven lacs in the account of appellant on 02.08.2010 which is against the Principal of natural justice. 4. That order of Ld A.O is bad in law, as well as, on facts. 5. That appellant craves to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed-off. 6. That the order may kindly be modified or another consequential relief be allowed." 6.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further filed an additional ground on dated 21.04.2022 which is reproduced as below: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and framing the impugned assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, additions made in the impugned order are beyond jurisdiction and illegal also for the reason that these could not have been mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture incriminating documents actually has not been defined in any of the Act. As per Mr. Dhawan all the documents of the of assessee are incriminating documents. The documents are unverified, un-assessed by the revenue authority during the processing of return u/s 143(1) of the Act. 6.6. Ld CIT-DR further argued & referred the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT, Circle-3 vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxman.com 412(Del):- "37. iv. Although Section 153 A 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 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 're....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No-2271 of 2010, Date of Order-02/12/2010: "139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited (1994) All ER 293 the House of Lords observed that `Incuria' literally means `carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The `quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, `in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. The same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. "......... In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, para 578) per incuriam has been elucidated as under: "A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow (Young v. Bristol Aerop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return and similarly (iii) those claims which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified/allowed/disallowed. What was permissible was correction of errors apparent on the basis of the documents accompanying the return. The Assessing Officer had no authority to make adjustments or adjudicate upon any debatable issues. In other words, the Assessing Officer had no power to go behind the return, accounts or documents, either in allowing or in disallowing deductions, allowance or relief." 6.12. Respectful observation of this order which is stated that during processing of return u/s 143(1) there is no application of mind. In this factual interpretation the addition was made u/s 2(22)(e) related to deemed dividend such shares invested by the assessee to the company where he has the substantial interest. This particular investment is reflected in the books of account of the assessee. There is coherent relation in between company and assessee. The counsel of the assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Additional ground reproduced as under: "Sub: Prayer for admission of additional grounds in the case of Ms Guru Nanak Milk Products, Ferozpur Cantt. in ITA No. 583 ASR/2019, 584/ASR/2019; 585/ASR/2019 The appellant begs to move the following ground as additional ground:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act and that too without complying with the mandatory requirements and conditions u/s 153D as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the above ground does not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root of the matter, it is prayed that it may please be admitted in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383." 8.2 The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld Counsel prayed for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned as the number of days are negligible. 9. During the hearing with the additional ground, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed the approval u/s 153D bearing no. F.No.JCIT/CR/Jal/....