TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14. Also, the assessee company is before us as a cross-objector for the aforementioned years. The captioned cross-appeals (mentioned at Sl. No.9 & 10) filed by the assessee company and the revenue are directed against the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, dated 16.08.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), dated 30.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19. As the issues involved in the present appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue in IT(SS)A No.06/RPR/2021 and the corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No.12/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2010-11 as the lead matter for adjudication. IT(SS)A No. 06/RPR/2021 CO. No. 12/RPR/2022 A.Y. 2010-11 3. The revenue has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-3, Bhopal on the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) has erred in denying the legal issue raised that approval granted u/s. 153D dt.30-12-19 by the Jt.CIT is in mechanical & routine manner without application of mind by the Jt.CIT in a hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual in absence of a valid approval as mandated by law u/s. 153D as per sec. 153B(1)(a); assessment made u/s. 153A rws. 143(3) would be invalid, bad in law & non-est and is liable to be quashed." 5. The captioned cross-objections filed by the assessee respondent involves a delay of 9 days. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee company elaborated on the reasons leading to the delay in filing the cross-objections. It was submitted by him that the same had occasioned for the reason that though the orders/documents were dispatched by the assessee company on 27.09.2022 through courier but the same were received in his office only as on 06.10.2022. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the delay had occasioned not for any lapse on the part of the assessee company which had forwarded the orders/documents to it's counsel within the stipulated time period but because of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 28.03.2023 (filed on 30.03.2023) are dismissed as withdrawn. 9. The Ld. AR at the threshold submitted that as per instructions he seeks liberty to withdraw the ground of cross objection No.1. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the seeking of withdrawal of the ground of cross objection No.1. Considering the concession of the Ld. AR the Ground of cross objection No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn. FACTS: 10. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sponge iron and MS Ingots/Billets had filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 01.10.2009, declaring an income of Rs. 15,17,820/-. The assessee company was, thereafter, subjected to search proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act on 24.10.2017. The assessee company in compliance to the notice issued by the A.O u/s. 153A of the Act had, inter alia, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.12.2019, declaring its income as was originally returned at Rs. 15,17,820/-. 11. Assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O vide a consolidated order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 and the succeeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore him are culled out as under: (A) ON ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL: - "4.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, Ground No 5 for AY 2014-15 and Ground No 1 for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged legality of assessment order passed by the AO. I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the various decision cited, and the assessment order. Once the search has taken place and notices u/s. 153A has been issued the jurisdiction is conferred on the assessing officer to pass assessment order `to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. The assessing officer has specifically mentioned in para 3 of the assessment order that various books of accounts, documents, loose papers were seized. The appellant assessee has filled the returns of income in response to notice u/s. 153A issued for A.Y 2009-10 to 2017-18 and the assessee filed returns of income for A.Y 2012-13 to 2017-18 on 26.10.2019 and AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 on 25.12.2019. Shri. Amit Maloo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0) to Para 4.3.6 (Page No. 456) after drawing support from a plethora of judicial pronouncements (relevant extracts culled out in his order), found favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company that the A.O had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in treating the share application money of Rs. 5.75 crore which it had received during the subject year as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 15. To sum up, the CIT(Appeals) had dealt with the multi-facet contentions of the assessee company, as under: * The CIT(Appeals) had found favour with the contentions that were advanced by the assessee company qua the merits of the addition of Rs. 5.75 crore that was made by the A.O, wherein the latter had held the share application money that was received by the assessee company from two share applicant companies during the subject year as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) had vacated the addition of Rs. 5.75 crore (supra) that was made by the A.O u/.s. 68 of the Act. * The CIT(Appeals) did not find favour with the claim of the assessee company that in absence of any incriminating document for the subject year foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company has assailed the rejection of its claim by the CIT(Appeals) that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the impugned additions u/s. 153A of the Act, viz. (i) that in absence of any incriminating material for the subject year found during the course of search proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017, no addition could have been made by the A.O as regards the unabated assessment for the year under consideration ; and (ii) that in absence of any valid approval u/s. 153D of the Act by the Jt. CIT, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 was liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. 18. As the assessee company has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 in absence of a valid approval u/s. 153D of the Act of the Jt. CIT, Raipur-Central, Raipur; and also, the sustainability of the additions made by the A.O in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of the search proceedings qua the subject year, wherein, the assessment proceedings were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of fresh share capital and share premium that was received by the assessee company during the subject year. The Ld. AR to fortify his aforesaid contention had taken us though Page 16 of the assessee's paper book (APB). The Ld. AR had specifically drawn our attention to the relevant extract of the "balance sheet" of the assessee company for the year under consideration, which revealed the share capital as of 31.03.2010 at Rs. 1,90,70,000/-. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the infusion of fresh capital during the year was Rs. 91,60,000/-, i.e. Rs. 1,90,70,000/- (as of 30.03.2010) [minus] Rs. 99,10,000/- (as of 31.03.2009). The Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,53,40,000/- mentioned in the aforesaid chart was the amount of share premium that was received by the assessee company during the subject year. It was submitted by him that the fresh receipt of share premium of Rs. 10,53,40,000/- during the subject year was disclosed by the assessee company in its financial statements as "Securities Premium Account" under the parent head "Reserves and surplus", Page 19 of APB. The Ld. AR to support his contentions had drawn our attention to Page 16 &19 of APB, i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he block period, i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2018-19 were recorded in the books of account of the assessee company. The Ld. AR submitted that now when the share application money of Rs. 5.75 crore (supra) received by the assessee company from the subject investor companies, viz. (i) M/s. Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 3.45 crore; and (ii) M/s Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd. : 2.30 crore were recorded in its books of account which, thereafter, were audited and formed part of its financial statements that were enclosed along with its original return of income filed on 01.10.2009, therefore, it was difficult to fathom as to how the same could be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" found in the course of search proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017. The Ld. AR to fortify his contention that the respective amounts received by the assessee company during the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 were recorded in the books of account, submitted that the said details were filed by the assessee company in its reply filed on 24.12.2019 with the A.O pursuant to the queries that were raised by him vide his notice u/s. 142(1), dated 03.09.2019. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') submitted that as "incriminating material" for the subject year was found and seized in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) had rightly rejected the assessee's claim that no addition as regards its unabated assessment for the subject year was called for. The Ld. CIT, DR in support of his contention regarding the aforementioned issue had relied upon the consolidated report filed by the ACIT, Bilaspur, dated 08.09.2023, which reads as under: (B). Re: In absence of a valid approval u/s. 153D r.w.s. 153B(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 30.12.2019 was invalid and bad in law: 28. Apropos the ground of cross objection No.3 (revised), we find that the assessee company has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) to the extent he had rejected its claim that in absence of a valid approval as mandated u/s. 153D r.w.s. 153B(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 was invalid and bad in law and was liable to be str....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to apply independent mind to the seized material for "each assessment year" in respect of "each assessee" separately. The Ld. AR took us through Section 153D of the Act. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Sapna Gupta (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 and Pr. CIT Vs. Siddharth Gupta (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All. HC), and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del.HC). Also, the Ld. AR in support of his contention that in case approval was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT, then the same vitiated the assessment order, had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312(Orissa). The Ld. AR further submitted that a mechanical approval without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT would be invalid in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR in support of his contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-(Central)-2 Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 27.12.2019 from the Registered/Department Valuer, viz. M/s. Frontline Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, wherein the latter had commented on the objections to his valuation as were earlier filed by the assessee company. Further, the A.O on 27.12.2019 had issued a letter to the assessee company and directed it to submit its reply regarding the comments of the Registered/department Valuer, viz. M/s.Frontline Consultants Pvt. Ltd. by 28.12.2019 (upto 02.00 pm). Also, a "Show Cause Notice" ("SCN"), dated 27.12.2019 was issued by the A.O to the assessee company therein calling upon it to put forth an explanation that as to why an addition of Rs. 1,61,42,749/- towards difference in value of stock may not be made in its case u/s. 69 of the Act by 28.12.2019 (upto 2.00 pm). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company in response to the letter dated 27.12.2019 (supra) of the A.O had submitted its reply on the same date, i.e. on 27.12.2019. Referring to the aforesaid facts, the Ld. AR submitted that now when the A.O had forwarded the impugned "draft assessment order" for approval to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur on 26.12.2019, therefore, it is incomprehensible that as to how he had the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order", had resulted to a final assessment order, dated 30.12.2019 that was substantially different from the "draft assessment order". 33. The Ld. AR to fortify his contention had carried out a conjoint reading of the "draft assessment order" vis-à-vis the final assessment order, dated 30.12.2019. The Ld. AR had placed on record his written submissions dated 05.06.2024, wherein he had pointed out the detailed instances of difference between the consolidated "draft assessment order" that was forwarded by the A.O to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur under his covering letter dated 26.12.2019 and the consolidated final assessment order passed by him u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019. 34. The Ld. AR submitted that as there were glaring differences between the "draft assessment order" (copy of which was provided by the Ld.CIT-DR in the course of hearing of the appeal) and the final assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the consolidated final assessment order passed by the A.O, i.e. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2018-19 was the not the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, dated 30.12.2019 did not suffer from any infirmity. The Ld. DR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Hitesh Golchha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.88 of 2024, dated 16.04.2024. The Ld. DR had further relied on the consolidated report of the A.O dated 08.09.2023 on the aforesaid issue, wherein he had rebutted the assessee's claim that the A.O in absence of a valid approval having been granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, which reads as under: (C) RE: On merits: 36. The Ld. DR has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the latter had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 5.75 crore made by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act regarding bogus share capital/premium received by the assessee company from Kolkata based paper/shell companies. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that as the assessee company during the subject year had allegedly received share applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere the group entities of the assessee company. The Ld. DR submitted that the onus cast upon the assessee company as regards proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies as well as the genuineness of the transactions of receipt of share application money/share capital/share premium from them was not discharged. The Ld. DR submitted that a careful perusal of the bank accounts of the investor companies revealed that immediately before the subject investments with the assessee company an equivalent amount was transfered in their bank accounts. It was submitted by him that in case where an excess amount had come in the bank accounts of the investor companies, then the amount in excess of the investment with the assessee company was routed/diverted to other beneficiaries, i.e. the group entities of the assessee company. The Ld. DR submitted that the investor companies were worthless companies which were not involved in any business activities. Also, the Ld. DR to fortify his claim that the investor companies were paper/shell companies had drawn support from the fact that though they were holding substantial stakes in the assessee company but were neither involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & seizure proceedings conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on the assessee company on 24.10.2017, could not have made any addition while framing the assessment for the said year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 which was unabated as on the date of search. 41. Admittedly, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd, (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), the issue that in respect of an unabated assessment, no addition can be made by the A.O in absence of incriminating material found for the subject year during the course of search & seizure proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act or requisition u/s. 132A of the Act is no more res-integra. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid issue are culled out as under: "5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The question which is posed for consideration in the present set of appeals is, as to whether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments, whether the jurisdiction of AO to make assessment is confined to incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". 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 assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of or pursuant to the search or requisition. However, instead of the earlier regime of block assessment whereby; it was only the undisclosed income of the block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the Legislature 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 sub-section (1) is annulled 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act." 8. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating material. 9. While considering the issue involved, one has to consider the object and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act, 1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under Section 153A of the Act, 1961. 9.1 That prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the relevant provision for block assessment was under Section 158BA of the Act, 1961. The erstwhile scheme of block assessment under Section 158BA envisaged assessment of 'undisclosed income' for two reasons, firstly that there we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' for the entire six years period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court was, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition made on the basis of the incriminating material during the course of search. 16.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasoning, all these appeals filed by the assessee - Dayawanti through legal heir fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs." 42. Controversy involved in the present appeal in the backdrop of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) boils down to two fundamental aspects, viz. (A) that as to whether or not assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee company for A.Y. 2010-11 were unabated as on the date on which search & seizure proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on it, i.e. on 24.10.2017; and (B) that as to whether or not any incriminating material pertaining to the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 was found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company. (A). Re: As to whether assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee company were unabated as on the da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) as had been deliberated upon by us at length hereinabove. 46. At this stage, we may herein observe that the departmental representative in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to improve upon the assessment order, and can only support the same. Although it is the claim of the Ld. DR that incriminating material was unearthed in the course of search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company but the said fact does not emanate from the assessment order. On the contrary, the A.O while framing the assessment had observed that additions/disallowances can validly be made while framing the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act irrespective of the fact that no incriminating material for the subject year was found in the course of the search proceedings. Although the contention of the Ld. DR as had been canvassed before us, i.e. incriminating material was found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted u/s. 132 of the Act on the assessee company does not emanate from the assessment order, but in all fairn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has challenged legality of assessment order passed by the AO. I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the various decision cited, and the assessment order. Once the search has taken place and notices u/s. 153A has been issued the jurisdiction is conferred on the assessing officer to pass assessment order `to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. The assessing officer has specifically mentioned in para 3 of the assessment order that various books of accounts, documents, loose papers were seized. The appellant assessee has filled the returns of income in response to notice u/s. 153A issued for A.Y 2009-10 to 2017-18 and the assessee filed returns of income for A.Y 2012-13 to 2017-18 on 26.10.2019 and AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 on 25.12.2019. Shri. Amit Maloo C.A and authorized representative attended the assessment proceedings before the A.0 from time to time and filled written submissions with supporting documents which were placed on record by the A.O. Regular books of accounts were also produced and checked with se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed bogus share application money with independent cogent evidence that the companies from whom share application money was received were involved in providing accommodation entries or the moneys emanated from the coffers of the assessee company which, thus, could prove that the latter's claim was incorrect. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) recorded at Page 383 of his order are culled out as under: "It is utmost important to mention that search and survey proceedings u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on the premises of the appellant alongwith investor companies and during the course of search not a single iota of doubt and evidence was found regarding the appellant's engagement in procuring bogus accommodation entry. Nonetheless, no incriminating material relevant to the additions made has been referred by the AO which pertains to the alleged bogus share application money availed by the appellant from its five group companies which have been simultaneously assessed with same AO. It is seen that during the course of impugned assessment proceedings, the AO called for information from the assessee and the assessee in reply has filed all t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as under: "......... Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014-15 2384800 26232800 28617600 2015-16 154150 1695650 1849800 Total 44028360 396763849 440792209 Page 20-LPS-1 Prithvi Deal Com Pvt. Ltd. Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd. Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Chitrakoot Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Total Sl. No. F.Y Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 1 2009-10 40500000 23000000 - - - 63500000 2 2010-11 38500000 13700000 12000000 - - 64200000 3 2011-12 22300000 54200000 9000000 - - 85500000 4 2012-13 1275000 - 69350000 15300000 13000000 98925000 5 2013-14 - - - - 6500000 6500000 Grand Total 102575000 909000000 90350000 15300000 19500000 318625000 52. Apropos the seized document, viz. Page 44 of LPS-1, we concur with the Ld. AR that the amounts therein mentioned are the details of infusion of fresh share capital and share premium with the assessee company during the subject year, which were recorded in its audited financial statements filed alongwith its original return of income for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts audited "balance sheet" that was filed along with its original return of income for the said year. 54. Based on our aforesaid observations, we are of the view that as the contents of the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 makes a mention of the "share capital" and "share premium" that was received by the assessee company during the subject year, which as observed by us hereinabove were disclosed in its audited "balance sheet" for the said year, therefore, the same cannot be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" found during the course of search proceedings. Our aforesaid view that a transaction recorded in the books of account of an assessee which had been subjected to audit and was disclosed in its financial statements enclosed along with the original return of income, cannot be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" found in the course of search proceedings is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Param Dairy Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 89 (Del.). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were carried out on the assessee group on 28.02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived by the assessee company for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 was recorded in its books of account. In fact, the A.O had observed that the assessee company in the garb of share application money stated to have been received from various Kolkata based paper/shell companies had introduced its unaccounted income in its books of account. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the A.O are culled out as under: "4.1 During the course of search assessment, it is found that during the block period from A.Y 2009-10 to 2018-19, M/s NR Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd has introduced its unaccounted money into the books in the form of share application money from various Kolkata Based shell companies. The rotation of money through various bank accounts and companies was carried by entry operator. An entry operation is the person who is in the business of giving accommodation entries in lieu of cash/cheque of equal amount after charging certain percentage of commission in cash. The details of shell/paper companies and year wise investment are as under: As observed by us hereinabove, it is the Ld. ARs' claim that now when the share application money received by the assessee co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame. In fact, it is not even the case of the department that any incriminating material evidencing receipt of accommodation entries by the assessee company in the garb of share application money/share capital/share premium from the aforementioned investor/subscriber companies was found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017. (B) Re : Statements of the directors of the investor companies: 61. The Ld. DR had emphasized that the statements of the directors of the investor companies from whom share application money/share capital/share premium of Rs. 5.75 crore (supra) was received by the assessee company during the subject year were in itself incriminating in nature. The Ld. DR by pressing into service the observations of the A.O, had tried to impress upon us that the statements of the directors of the investor companies/entry operator that were recorded prior to the search proceedings conducted on the assessee company being incriminating in nature vested jurisdiction with the A.O to make additions towards bogus share application money/share capital/share premium while framing the assessment of the assessee company for the subject year, i.e. A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the Assessee during search operation." 64. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Del.). The Hon'ble High Court relying upon its earlier order in the case of CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggrawal (supra), had once again held that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act cannot by itself be construed as an incriminating material. Also, the aforesaid view had been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. JPM Tools Ltd (2023) 154 Taxmann.com 44 (Delhi). The Hon'ble High Court, while approving the view taken by the Tribunal had relied on its earlier order passed in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and held that a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act cannot by itself be construed as an incriminating material. Further, our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain HUF (2021) 432 ITR 384 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court had observed that the existe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticularly when the statement was not recorded on the basis of any incriminating material found or unearthed in the course of search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee. 66. We, thus, based on our aforesaid deliberations are unable to concur with the A.O (as stated in his report dated 08.09.2023)/CIT-DR that the adverse statements of the directors of the investor companies, which were recorded much prior to the search conducted on the assessee company can be brought within the meaning of "incriminating evidence" found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017 which, thus, vested jurisdiction with the A.O to make additions while framing the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. (C) Re: Evasive reply of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, director of the assessee company in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, dated 24.10.2017 and u/s. 131(1A) of the Act, dated 29.01.2018: 67. The Ld. DR submitted that Shri Sanjay Agrawal, director of the assessee company, was confronted with the impounded material that was seized from the premises of the chartered accountant of the assessee company, viz. Shri Amin Khatri, wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 69. Apart from that, we are of a firm conviction that the mere fact that Shri Sanjay Agrawal, director of the assessee company, had in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, dated 24.10.2017 failed to furnish details as regards the investments made by the investor/subscriber companies can by no stretch of imagination render the said statement as incriminating in nature. Also, we find no substance in the claim of the department that as Shri Sanjay Agrawal (supra) in his reply to Question No.7 of his statement recorded u/s. 131(1A) of the Act dated 29.01.2018, had stated that the share capital/premium was received by the assessee company from Kolkata based investor companies through banking channels, therefore, the same rendered the said statement as incriminating in nature. At the threshold, we may observe that as the aforesaid statement dated 29.01.2018 (supra) was in itself recorded much after conclusion of the search proceedings, therefore, the same cannot be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" found in the course of search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017. Also, we are unable to comprehend that as to how any a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nferences regarding the financial credibility of the investor companies by the A.O de-hors finding of any incriminating material in the course of search & seizure proceedings would not vest jurisdiction with the A.O to make addition in its unabated assessment for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. 72. Alternatively, we are of the view that as the investors/subscriber companies in compliance to the notices issued by the A.O u/s. 133(6) of the Act had filed copies of share certificates, bank statements evidencing subscription, copies of return of income, audited financial statements, therefore, the primary onus that was cast upon the assessee company u/s. 68 of the Act stood discharged. As the A.O while framing the assessment had though referred to the statements of the directors of the investor companies but had failed to place on record any material which would conclusively establish that the unaccounted money of the assessee company was routed back to its coffers in the garb of bogus share application money/share capital/share premium, there could be no justification for summarily drawing of any adverse inferences based on the aforesaid statements which were never confronted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 could have been made. 75. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we concur with the Ld. AR that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made an addition of Rs. 5.75 crore (supra) u/s. 68 of the Act while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, the Ground of cross objection No.2 raised by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 76. Before parting, we may herein observe that though the additions made by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, had been vacated by us on the ground that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search proceedings conducted on the assessee company, no addition could have been made by the A.O while framing assessment u/s. 153A of the Act as regards the unabated/completed assessment for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, but as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), the remedy is still available to the revenue to initi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The purpose of incorporating the aforesaid statutory provision is to prevent arbitrary or biased decisions by introducing a layer of accountability in the assessment process. 79. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxmann.com 2 (Del.) and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the cases of Pr. CIT Vs. Sapna Gupta (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 and Pr. CIT Vs. Siddharth Gupta (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All. HC), while approving the view taken by the Tribunal had held that the approving authority is required to apply independent mind to the material on record for "each assessment year" in respect of "each assessee" separately. Also, it was observed that in case approval was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Jt. CIT, then the same vitiated the assessment order. Further, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & CO, SLP (Civil) Diary No.44989/2023 dated 28.11.2023, had approved the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa), wherein it was held that non-compliance with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore 27.12.2019 (up to 5.00 pm). For the sake of clarity, the letter dated 27.12.2019 of the Dy.CIT (Central Circle)-2, Raipur is culled out as under: 82. Also, the A.O vide his "Show Cause Notice" ("SCN") dated 27.12.2019, Page 159A of the APB for A.Y. 2018-19, had called upon the assessee company to put forth an explanation as to why the difference of stock pertaining to raw material, finished goods and scrap amounting to Rs. 1,61,42,749/- may not be added in its case u/s. 69 of the Act. The A.O as per the "SCN" dated 27.12.2019 had directed the assessee company to furnish its reply by 28.12.2019 (upto 02.00 pm). For the sake of clarity, the aforesaid SCN, dated 27.12.2019 issued by the Dy.CIT, Central Circle- 2, Raipur is culled out as under: We find that the assessee company had thereafter in compliance to the aforesaid letter/SCN, both dated 27.12.2019, issued by the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur on the same date, i.e. on 27.12.2019 filed its reply, Page 157-158 of APB for A.Y. 2018-19. 83. Ostensibly, the aforementioned facts reveal that the A.O after forwarding the "draft assessment order" vide his letter dated 26.12.2019, had thereafter continued with the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-2, Raipur, wherein it had rebutted the comments of the registered/department's valuer, viz. M/s. Frontline Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 84. We find substance in the Ld. AR's contention that it is not a case that the A.O after forwarding the "draft assessment order" to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 26.12.2019 (received by the Jt. CIT on the same date) for approval u/s. 153D of the Act, had thereafter, communicated to the said approving authority about the assessment proceedings that were continued by him after forwarding the "draft assessment order" on 26.12.2019. Also it is not a case that the A.O had forwarded any fresh "draft assessment order" incorporating the aforesaid material facts to the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur for his approval u/s. 153D of the Act, viz. (i) receipt by the A.O of a letter/comments of the registered/department's valuer, viz. M/s. Frontline Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated 27.12.2019; (ii) letter dated 27.12.2019 issued by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur to the assessee company calling upon it to offer its comments to the letter/comments dated 27.12.2019 of the registered /department's valuer, viz. M/s. Frontlin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;, there is mentioned figures of value of physical verification at Rs. 99,94,740; thereafter difference mentioned at Rs. 3,91,061; While, in the 'final assessment order', there is mentioned figures of value of physical verification at Rs. 99,94,660; thereafter, difference mentioned at Rs. 3,90,980; (b) at Sl.No.4 of Coal there is difference in rate per MT (PMT) and corresponding value as compared to final assessment order: In the 'draft assessment order', rate per MT of physical verification taken at Rs. 2,180 and as per books of account taken at Rs. 2,180; value of difference taken at Rs. 31,45,773; While, in the 'final assessment order', rate per MT of physical verification taken at Rs. 3,000 and as per books of account taken at Rs. 2,500; value of difference taken at Rs. 1,08,70,619; (c) at Sl.No.7 of Charcoal in the 'draft assessment order' mentioned in table of "Excess Items"; while, in the 'final assessment order, it is included in in the table of "Shortage"; (d) at Sl.No.8 of Dolomite in 'draft assessment order and 'final assessment order, there are following differences in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or 'shortage of stock', GP rate of 12.70% taken for AY18-19 in draft assessment order at Para 5.3; while, for 'shortage of stock', GP rate of 11.36% is taken based on last 3 years average in final assessment order at Para 5.3; similarly, 'unaccounted sale' is taken at Rs. 1,30,10,170 and profit on such sales taken at Rs. 16,52,292 in the draft assessment order at Para 5.3 while, profit on 'shortage of stock taken at Rs. 14,89,762 in the final assessment order at Para 5.3. (vii) at Page 56 of the draft assessment order at Para 8, in the table, addition of Rs. 3,59,42,686 and assessed income for AY18-19 is mentioned at Rs. 6,05,53,626; while, in the final assessment order dt.30-12-2019, at Page 57, addition of Rs. 3,69,49,865 and assessed income at Rs 6,15,60,805 has been mentioned. The above differences are mentioned in tabular format: Table 1. 4. It is submitted that when the final assessment order is different (and in the present case, it is materially different), the Assessing Officer ought to have obtained a fresh approval in order to effectively comply with provisions of S.153D of the Act. 5. In this respect, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority as required per the mandate of law. Also, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of BBG India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.11 to 16/PUN/2023, dated 19.10.2023, taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O after obtaining approval of the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act had thereafter carried out certain rectification/improvements and passed the final assessment order, observed that the said order was to be held as having been passed without obtaining the approval as per the mandate of law. 88. We are of a firm conviction that once the "draft assessment order" is approved by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act, then the A.O thereafter is rendered as functus officio and can only pass the final assessment order as approved by the Jt. CIT. An analogy in support of our aforesaid view can safely be drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Vs. U.A.Joshi, ITO and another (1997) 225 ITR 458 (SC). In the present case before us not only the A.O had tinkered with the "draft assessment order" that was approved by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide his letter dated 30.12.2019 but had also come up with a final assessment order, which as observed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en done in accordance with the official procedure, it will lead to a presumption that due diligence was followed. Apart from that, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that as the matter was remanded back to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication with a liberty to the assessee to raise the issue before the revenue authority, and furnish necessary information/evidence in support of his contention, therefore, no prejudice was caused to him. 91. At this stage, we may herein observe that in the case of Hitesh Golchha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), the assessee except for referring to the contents of the approval letter had failed to lead any evidence/material which could irrefutably prove to the hilt that the approval was mechanically granted in absence of any application of mind by the Jt. CIT. However, the facts involved in the present case before us are materially distinguishable. The A.O in the present case after forwarding the "draft assessment order" vide his letter dated 26.12.2019, had thereafter continued with the assessment proceedings over the period, i.e. 27.12.2019 to 28.12.2019, and had passed the final assessment order which is found to be substant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said year, therein, remains the same as are there before us in its case for the captioned year, i.e.A.Y. 2011-12, in CO No.13/RPR/2022, but we deem it fit to briefly cull out the facts in so far the same emanates from the contents of the seized documents referred to by the A.O in the assessment order for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, viz. (i) Page 44 of LPS-1; and (ii) Page 20 of LPS-1. 95. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the assessment order that the A.O had referred to two documents which were seized from the office premises of the assessee company during the course of search & seizure proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017, viz. (i) Page 44 of LPS 1; and (ii) Page 20 of LPS-1. For the sake of clarity, the scanned copies of the aforesaid seized documents are culled out as under: Page 44-LPS-1 M/s. N.R ISPAT & POWER PVT. LTD DETAILS OF INFUSION OF CAPITAL Year Paid-up capital Share premium Total 2007-08 300000 0 300000 2008-09 9610000 22690000 32300000 2009-10 9160000 105340000 114500000 2010-11 0 0 0 2011-12 12648000 145152000 157800000 2012-13 6578940 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. 97. Apropos the amount of Rs. 0/- mentioned in the aforesaid seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1, under the head "share premium" for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, we find that the fact that no amount was received by the assessee company as "Share premium" during the subject year was disclosed in "Schedule B" of its "balance sheet" for the said year as "Securities premium account" under the parent head "Reserves and surplus", Page 19 of APB, as under: "SCHEDULE- B RESERVES & SURPLUS AS AT AS AT 31-03-2011 31-03-2010 "Securities Premium Account Opening Balance 128,030,000 22,690,000 Received during the year - 128,030,000 105,340,000 Profit & Loss Account 20,572,838 46,64,660 148,602,838 132,694,660 In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we find that as mentioned in the aforesaid seized document, i.e. Page No. 44 of LPS-1, the assessee company during the subject year had not received any amount of "Share premium", a fact that was disclosed in its au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100. We, thus, are of a strong conviction that as the contents of the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 makes a reference of the fact that the assessee company during the subject year had not received any amount of "Share capital" and "Share premium", i.e. a fact that is recorded in its audited financial statements filed along with its original return of income, therefore, by no means the same can be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" found during the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017. 101. Apropos the seized document, viz. Page No.20 of LPS 1, it is the Ld. AR's contention that the contents of the same reveals the "Share application money" that was received by the assessee company during the subject year from the investor companies, viz. (i) M/s. Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 3.85 crore; (ii) M/s. Shri Shayam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 1.37 crore; and (iii) M/s. Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 1.20 crore, and the same were recorded in its books of accounts. 102. Before proceeding any further, it would be pertinent to point out that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on money of Rs. 6.42 crore (supra) that was received from them, as under: 103. We are of a firm conviction that now when the share application money of Rs. 6.42 crore (supra) received by the assessee company from the aforementioned share applicants, viz. (i) M/s. Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 3.85 crore; (ii) M/s. Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 1.37; and (iii) M/s. Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 1.20 crore is found recorded in its audited books of accounts which formed part of its financial statements that were enclosed along with its original return of income, therefore, it is difficult for us to fathom that as to how the same can be brought within the meaning of "Incriminating material" found in the course of search proceedings conducted on it on 24.10.2017. Rather, the fact that shares have been allotted by the assessee company to the said respective share applicants in lieu of the share application money received from them, viz. (i) M/s. Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : 3,08,000 shares allotted (for Rs. 3.85 crore on 03.03.2012); (ii) M/s. Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 1,09,600 shares allotted (for Rs. 1.37 crore on 03.03.2012); and (iii) M/s. Unnati Commodeal Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utatis-mutandis apply for disposing the captioned cross-objection, viz. CO No.13/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. The Ground of cross objection No.3 (revised) is allowed on same terms. 107. In the result, while for the cross objection filed by the assessee company in CO No.13/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12 is allowed, the appeal of the revenue in IT(SS)A No.7/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed as having been rendered as infructuous in terms of our aforesaid observations. IT(SS)A 08/RPR/2021 CO No.14/RPR/2022 A.Y.2012-13 108. Although the facts and the issue involved in the case of the assessee company for A.Y. 2010-11, i.e. CO No.12/RPR/2022, based on which we have, inter alia, vacated the additions made by the A.O vide his consolidated order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2010-11, for the reason that in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017 no addition could have been made as regards its unabated assessment for the said year, therein, remains the same as are there before us in its case for the captioned year, i.e.A.Y. 2012-13, CO No.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere recorded in its audited financial statements filed alongwith its original returns of income for the subject year, and had been scrutinized by the A.O while framing the original assessment in its case vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2015. Our aforesaid view can safely be gathered from a conjoint perusal of the "balance sheet" of the assessee company as on 31.03.2012, and the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz. Page 44-LPS-1. The "balance sheet" of the assessee company for the year under consideration reveals the share capital at Rs. 3,17,18,000/- (as on 31.03.2012) and at Rs. 1,90,70,000 (as on 31.03.2011) as under: "(i) Shareholders fund As at As at 31-03-2012 31-03-2011 (a) share capital 3,17,18,000 19,070,000" It transpires on a careful scrutinizing of the aforesaid "balance sheet" that there was an infusion of fresh "share capital" during the subject year amounting to Rs. 1,26,48,000/-, i.e. Rs. 3,17,10,000/- (as on 31.03.2012) (minus) Rs. 1,90,70,000/- (as on 31.03.2011). We, thus, find substance in the Ld. AR's contention that as mentioned in the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 fresh "shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Pr. CIT Vs. Param Dairy Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 89 (Del.). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were carried out on the assessee group on 28.02.2024. Although, the assessee company in its return of income had claimed cash payments of about Rs. 17 crores to dairy owners from whom it had purchased milk, but in the course of search proceedings, it was found that the said payments were not made to the dairy owners but to middlemen. As the cash payments made by the assessee company to middlemen were not permitted, thus, the A.O made addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee company. 113. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that since the entries of cash payments were made in the books of account of the assessee company, which had been subjected to audit and formed part of the return of income filed by the assessee company, therefore, it could not be brought within the meaning of incriminating evidence found during the course of search proceedings. On further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court, inter alia, observed that the regular books of ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the garb of share application money from the said investor and had made addition of the same while framing the assessment for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. AR submitted that the receipt of "share application money" of Rs. 2.59 crore during the year under consideration, had been looked into by the A.O while framing assessment in its case vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2015, Page 12-16 of APB. 116. Before proceeding any further, it would be pertinent to point out that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, observed that the share application money received by the assessee company for the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 was recorded in its books of account. In fact, the A.O had observed that the assessee company in the garb of share application money stated to have been received from various Kolkata based paper/shell companies introduced its unaccounted income in its books of account. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the A.O are culled out as under: "4.1 During the course of search assessment, it is found that during the block period from A.Y 2009-10 to 2018-19, M/s NR Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.03.2015, therefore, it is difficult to fathom that as to how the same could be brought within the meaning of "Incriminating material" found in the course of search proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017. Rather, the fact that shares have been allotted by the assessee company to the said respective share applicants in lieu of the share application money received from them, viz. (i) M/s. Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : 2,07,200 shares allotted (for Rs. 2.59 crore on 03.03.2012); (ii) M/s. Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 2,67,200 shares allotted (for Rs. 5.42 crore on 03.03.2012/28.03.2012); and (iii) M/s. Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. : 72,000 shares allotted (for Rs. 90 lacs on 03.03.2012) i.e. much prior to the search and seizure proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017, therein further supports the assessee's claim that the contents of the seized documents, viz. Page 20-LPS-1 cannot be brought with the meaning of "incriminating material" found during the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017. 118. Although it is the claim of the department that the assessee company during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuous in terms of our aforesaid observations. IT(SS)A 09/RPR/2021 CO No.15/RPR/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 122. Although the facts and the issue involved in the case of the assessee company for A.Y. 2010-11, i.e. CO No.12/RPR/2022, based on which we have, inter alia, vacated the additions made by the A.O vide his consolidated order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2010-11, i.e. for the reason that in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017 no addition could have been made as regards its unabated assessment for the said year, therein, remains the same as are there before us in its case for the captioned year, i.e.A.Y. 2013-14, CO No.15/RPR/2022, but we deem it fit to briefly cull out the facts in so far the same emanates from the contents of the seized documents referred to by the A.O in the assessment order for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, viz. (i) Page 44 of LPS-1; and (ii) Page 20 of LPS-1. 123. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the assessment order that the A.O had referred to two documents which were s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B and the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz. Page 44-LPS-1. The "balance sheet" of the assessee company for the year under consideration reveals the share capital at Rs. 3,82,96,940/- (as on 31.03.2013) and at Rs. 3,17,18,000/- (as on 31.03.2012) as under: "(i) Shareholders fund Note No. As at As at 31-03-2013 31-03-2012 (R) (R) (a) share capital 2 38296940 31718000" It transpires on a careful scrutinizing of the aforesaid "balance sheet" that there was an infusion of fresh share capital during the subject year of Rs. 65,78,940/-, i.e. Rs. 3,82,96,940/-/- (as on 31.03.2013) (minus) Rs. 3,17,18,000/- (as on 31.03.2012). We, thus, find substance in the Ld. AR's contention that as mentioned in the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 the fresh share capital of Rs. 65,78,940/- that was received by the assessee company during the year under consideration was disclosed in its audited "balance sheet" for the said year. 125. Apropos the amount of Rs. 6,27,70,958/- mentioned in the aforesaid seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1, we find that the same was the amount that was received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d payments were not made to the dairy owners but to middlemen. As the cash payments made by the assessee company to middlemen were not permitted, thus, the A.O made addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee company. 127. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that since the entries of cash payments were made in the books of account of the assessee company, which had been subjected to audit and formed part of the return of income filed by the assessee company, therefore, it could not be brought within the meaning of incriminating evidence found during the course of search proceedings. On further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court, inter alia, observed that the regular books of account of the assessee company by no stretch of imagination could be treated as "incriminating material" to form a basis for framing of the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 128. We, thus, are of a strong conviction that as the contents of the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 makes a reference of the fact that the assessee company during the subject year had received amounts towards "share capital" and "s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (emphasis supplied by us) As observed by us hereinabove, it is the Ld. ARs' claim that now when the share application money received by the assessee company from the aforementioned investor companies was recorded in its books of account, it was, thus, incomprehensible as to how the same could be brought within the meaning of "incriminating material" as had been canvassed by the department's counsel. The Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs. 9,89,25,000/- i.e. aggregate amount mentioned in the seized document, viz. Page 20 of LPS-1, was the amount of share application money received by the assessee company during the subject year, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, against which shares were allotted to the aforesaid share applicants and complete details as regards the same were filed by the assessee company vide its reply filed with the A.O on 10.12.2019, i.e. during the course of the impugned assessment proceedings, Page 564-574 of APB. The Ld. AR in order to fortify his contention had drawn our attention to Page 571 of APB. In fact, we find on a perusal of the record that the assessee company vide its submissions filed with the CIT(Appeals), Page 236-237 of CIT(A)'s order, had s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of the department that any incriminating material evidencing receipt of accommodation entries by the assessee company in the garb of share application money/share capital/share premium from the aforementioned investor/subscriber companies was found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on 24.10.2017. 133. As the aforesaid issue had been deliberated at length by us in the preceding year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 in CO No.12/RPR/2022, wherein we had after dealing with the multi-facet observations of the lower authorities on the issue as to whether or not any "incriminating material" was found in the course of the search & seizure proceedings conducted on the assessee company on 24.10.2017, had answered the same in negative and decided the same in favour of the assessee company, therefore, our adjudication, on the said issue shall mutatis-mutandis apply for disposing the captioned cross-objection, viz. CO No.15/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 filed by the assessee company. The Ground of cross objection No.2 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 134. Apropos the issue that in absence of any valid approval of the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee in ITA No.04/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 is allowed, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.10/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 is dismissed as having been rendered as infructuous in terms of our aforesaid observations. 140. In the combined result, as the cross-objections filed by the assessee company, i.e. CO Nos. 12 to 15/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2010-2011 to 2013-14, and ITA No.04/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19, wherein the assumption of jurisdiction/additions made by the A.O have been struck down/vacated for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, and thus, have been allowed; therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(SS)A No.06 to 09/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14 and in ITA No.10/RPR/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 being rendered as academic are dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in open court on 30th day of August, 2024. ============= Document 1 NR Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. AY 2010-11 Report on Ground of Appeal raised by the appellant M/s N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd regarding Incriminating material/documents found during the course of search from premises of M/s N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. 1. 2. The assessee company is mainly engaged in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. has introduced its huge unaccounted money into the books in the form of share capital/ application money from various Kolkata Based shell companies. The details of such investment in assessee company during the A.Y. 2010-11 from following investors is as under:- Prithvi Dealcomm Pvt Ltd Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd Rs.3,45,00,000 Rs.2,30,00,000 Total: Rs.5,75,00,000 In respect of these investor companies it was noticed by the AO that they were involved in rotation of money through various bank accounts and these companies being managed by entry operator. An entry operator is the person who is in the business of giving accommodation entries in lieu of commission. 8. Shri Sanjay Agrawal (director in assessee company) on behalf of entire NR group during his post search statement on 29/01/2018, vide Quest. No. 8, was confronted with page No. 44 of LPS-1 seized from the office premises of M/s N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.. The scan copy of this seized sheet is as under:- M/S N.R.ISPAT & POWER PVT.LTD. DETAILS OF INFUSION OF CAPITAL Paid-up Capita Share Premium Total YEAR 2007-08 300000 о 2008-09 9610000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of Shri Amit Chanda was also verified from RoC portal and it was found that he is director in M/s Prithvi Dealcomm Pvt ltd., the same is proved from the entry No. 12 in the screen shot below- Ministry of Corporate Affairs User ID: BIKASH9433 Companies/ LLPs in which a person is/ was a director/ designated partner DIN/DPIN: 01769010 Name AMIT CHANDA Ñуще Name of the gay/L Quran designation of the actor Designated Partner Date: 08/08/123 11:28:31 PM.29/08/114 04:31:56 P.M. centration REŽISPIC ROW NOUSTON SCHGEAR & CARLES DO PRANIMATED OCTO STATERELD EROMANES PUFLTO CUCRAAGENCIES PYT TO Credo 15/10/2009 Acce OPTOMA FANTASTIC VYAPAR PORALS LASTED Connico ROL ANOT 82005PTC06212 | Aur BAY PVESTO 2012 NO SPECTRUM INFONET PRIVATE LEATED IN MY Ordo RUDRAKSH DEALCOMPRIVATE LIMITED SHYAM DEAL.COM PRIVATE LIMITED AVS2000PTC131883 | FAST GROW SUPPERS PRAATE LIMITE ST SUPPLIERS PROT LIMITED COMPT CHEGE HORAFINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Onder CONOWNIALLY EMPORUM PRIVATE LIMITED TUXCON ZOPICOTIE BARVOTIAN DESIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED 24/09/2000 1112011 A Considering this,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....panies were written which have purchased shares of assessee company M/s N R Ispat & Power P Ltd at huge premium of Rs. 115/- per share. Surprisingly he replied that he has no knowledge of this. Further, in response to Q No. 32,33,34 of the same statement which contained queries related to investments received by assessee company & the same being highlighted on some seized documents, he again stated that he has no knowledge. Reply of Shri Sanjay Agrawal director of assessee company & key person, itself is highly incriminating in nature. 11. It is also noticed that to justify infusion of share capital/premium, assessee company acquired the paper company M/s Prithvi Dealcomm Pvt Ltd and changed its name to M/s NR TMT India Pvt Ltd and got its address changed from RoC Kolkata to RoC Raipur so that the investor company doesn't seem to be a Kolkata based entity. Similary, in case of other investor company M/s Shri Shyam Ply Traders Pvt Ltd, this paper company was acquired by assessee in 2010 and RoC was changed from Kolkata to Raipur. However, Assessee director could never explain how he met Shri Shivang Chaudhary & Shri Vinayak Chaudhary (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hom did you or your representative contact above company. Please also mention the mode of contact (e. personal mesting, telephonic conversation, letter or any olier). 10 Peuse supply the list of offices/godowns/fictories/workshops & others premises along will Telephone Mobile No. used by you for your business activities during the period 01.04.2010 till date. 11. Please submit a list of all your directors during the F.Y. 2010-11 to 2016-17. 12. Please supply a copy of your Audit Report, Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet along with all Annexures for the FY 2010-11 to 2016-17, 13. Please grbe a brief note on the nature of business carried out by you during In F.Y, 2010-11 to 2016-17. 14. Planse supply the names of your directors at present along with their present posti address/telephone/mobile number along with a copy of the latest return of income filed by Best 15. Please farnisli capy of Acknowledgment of Return of Income Tax filed by your company for the F.Y 2010-11 10 2016-17along with computation of Total Income for all A. Ys 16. Please state if you lurer received any dividend from the above company till date. If so, please furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found to be insufficient for making such huge investment. perusal of the returns of income and Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet of the investor companies, it is found that no business activity were taken by the companies from the date of creation of the companies. The details are as under :- (i) Profit and Loss Account :- 9| Page d. Prithvi dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Particulars 1 Revenue from operations Total I. Other Income JIL Total Bevenue Exp M-Profit before Tax (IV) e. Shree Shyam Ply Traders Pvt. Ltd Particulars Otter Income Mar 18 Mar 17 Mar 16 Mar 15 Mar 14 Mar 13 1113579599 58920930 94800 2591520 3998141 356926 Mar 12 0 0 0 0 6285 1118171119 62419071 451726 1081684381 58307798 151140 36186738 4111273 240596 0 0 D 6285 45000 7579 17266 54085 45000 -7579 -17266 -57800 PARALL AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 Mar 18 Mar 17 Mar 16 Mar 15 Mar 14 Mar 13 Mar 12 42934520 4205806 BL Total Revenue 2883487 4205306 45818016 $51039 551039 0 IV. Exp Vi Profit before Tax (V) 43305992 34000 7883 3747098 2512024 487788 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he documents justifying the financials/investments by these investor companies were not available with the assessee company neither during search proceedings nor during time of assessment proceedings and the assets (in form of huge banking credits in assessee account) as investments remained unexplained in terms of section 68 of the act. In above background, it is submitted that there is presence of sufficient incriminating evidences which justify the addition made by the AO wrt Rs. 5,75,00,000/- an account of bogus Share capital/ premium received by the assessee from paper entities in AY 2010-11. "Incriminating material" 14. The assessee has raised ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in the cross appeal that for the AY 2010-11, there is no incriminating material /documents found during the course of search from premises of the assessee, hence addition is liable to be deleted. In the statement of director Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the act which has confronted with the specific reference of documents seized as page No. 20 & 44 of LPS from office premise of M/s N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. From ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions like 143(3); rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of misreporting or under-reporting of taxable income 12 Page 20. based on evidence found in pursuance to search. Therefore, the situations/actions which can lead to levy of penalty under Income Tax Act, will necessarily constitute incriminating for purposes of 153A/C of Act also. Section 270A(9) defines under reporting and misreporting as under: 270A (9): The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely: misrepresentation or suppression of facts: (a) (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence, (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; fe) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and 19 failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an International transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply. 21. Thus, if on account of search, the facts, and circumstances suggest that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of: • a document, content of any document; ⚫an entry in books of account; an asset; a statement given on oath; absence of any fact claimed earlier but coming to notice during search; absence of books being noticed during search; or absence of the office/ business premises as claimed in returns or any other documents, etc filed earlier. 24. Thus, the incriminating material/evidence can be documentary or testamentary or fixed to earth or a place or even the absence of any fact or asset at a claimed place can be itself be called incriminatory as it indicates 141 Page that the earlier claim made in books of accounts/ returns etc. were false and contrary to real situation on ground. 25. In short, any fact evidence which could suggest that the documents/ transactions claimed or submitted in any earlier proceedings were not genuine, being only a device make belief based on non-existent facts or suppressed misrepresented facts, would constitute an incriminating material sufficient to make assessment for the purposes of the Act. 26. Even a statement recorded during search & survey operation shall also constitute in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the documentary evidences related to such investment received and offered evasive reply in his statement. Absence of statutory documents (related to increase in Share capital/premium as per Income Tax & Company Act) which were mandatorily supposed to be found at assessee premise during course of search proceedings, is nothing but incriminating. Thus, it may be seen that the statement of assessee director in light of statements of dummy director Amit Chanda and entry operator Shri Amit Dalmia itself becomes the incriminating material, in view of the above judicial pronouncements. 32. Conclusion In view of all the facts & circumstances of the case, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee company for the A.Y. 2010-11 that there is no incriminating material/documents found during search from the premise of the assessee is not acceptable as from the above discussion it is clear that the documents found in LPS-1 bearing page No. 20 & 44 and also the statement recorded of Shri Amit Chanda and Shri Amit Dalmia alongwith the dubious financials of investor companies are incriminating in nature- 16 Page Document 4 1. The assessee re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed unexplained income to the tune of Rs. 15.01 crore during IDS 2016 in September 2016. (v) their being "incriminating material which provided appropriate jurisdiction for purpose of framing assessment u/s 153A. Submitted. 08-09-2023 (Pradeep Kumar Swarnakar) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) Document 5 'Table-A' Sequence Submission/ reply/ compliance made by the assessee-Co of events 8-11-18 Copy of audited financial statement for AY12-13 to 18-19 (copy enclosed..........) 10-12-19 Reply for AY12-13 to 18-19- against notice u/s 142(1) dt.3-9-19 (copy enclosed..........) 12-12-19 Written submission for AY12-13 to AY18-19- against questionnaire u/s142(1) dt.15-10-19; (copy enclosed.......... 16-12-19 Written submission for AY12-13 to AY18-19- against questionnaire u/s142(1) dt.15-10-19: (copy enclosed.......... 24-12-19 Written submission for AY12-13 to AY18-19- against questionnaire u/s142(1) dt.15-10-19; (copy enclosed.......... 25-12-19 ROI u/s153A filed for AY09-10 to AY11-12; (copy enclosed..........) 26-12-19 On 26-12-19, AO has issued notice u/s143(2) for AY09-10 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings before the Id AO was certainly going on at least up to the 28-12-19, and thereafter only, the ld AO would be able to prepare a consolidated 'draft assessment order' for the AY09-10 to 18-19 and then only, it would be sent to the ld Jt.CIT for his approval; these all things clearly prove that the 'draft assessment order' has been approved by the ld Jt.CIT without application of mind and in a most mechanical manner; in hasty manner without even going through the records; on merely office formality; Document 6 NR Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. (PAN- AACCN65910) AY 2010-11 Report on Ground of Appeal raised by the appellant M/s N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. regarding legal issue raised that JCIT has granted approval in mechanical and routine manner without application of mind in hasty manner. 1. The assessee company is mainly engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of sponge iron and mild steel (MS) ingots under the flagship entity M/s. N. R. Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh. The head of the business group is Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, who is one of the directors of the assessee company. 2. Search and seizure action u/s 132 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verse findings Satisfied himself that all the issues emanating from the records have been verified and the additions wherever required have been proposed" this itself shows that the Range Head was specifically supervising the Assessing officer in this case and just two months back JCIT central as part of supervision, issued the letter to AO. Further the approval letter dated 30-12-2019 (last para) of Range head clearly shows that case record (which comprises various notices issued, replies of assessee, seized material etc) were returned to the AO after approval". From records, it is clear that approval was granted by the range head on 30-12-2019 i.e. after 04 days of letter dated 26-12-2019 written by the AO seeking approval. Hence, challenge made by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT that the approval has been granted in mechanical and routine manner without application of mind in hasty manner is not correct. As regards the non-application of mind before going through the entire material & case records, it needs to be emphasized that every income tax officer in general is 2 Page 3. 4. very used to critically analysing hund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Raipur not only in written mode but also in oral mode from time to time. In the realm of administrative approval as contemplated u/s 153D, the preliminary satisfaction of Range Head requires only to the extent that the AO has looked into all seized material and has given opportunity to assessee by confronting the evidences and the additions proposed are based on one of the plausible interpretations. The Range Head here does not enter into the realm of deciding whether the additions proposed by AO is legally sustainable or not as Range Head does not enter into the role of adjudication of merits of the addition as he does u/s 144A or as appellate authority, which has been separately provided under the Act. The fact that judicial review of administrative function is limited and applicable only if the decision suffer from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the judgment of Municipal Council, Neemuch vs Mahadev Real Estate & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 7319-7320 of 2019). Therefore, there was no jurisdictional error or illegality or violation of principles of natural ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposed by the AO. It is also not the case that the supervisory authority comes to know of the facts / details of assessment proceedings in any case only at the time when it receives the draft order from AO seeking approval u/s 153D. The entire process of monitoring is a continuous process even before the receipt of draft order seeking the final approval u/s 153D. This aspect has indeed been emphasized in the approval in the present case where the approval letter states that "the cases have also been discussed with you (AO) from time to time". From the above, it may be seen that it was not 5 Page 12. 13. merely one time approval of the assessment order, but it was the result of constant monitoring, supervision and discussion regarding the progress made in the assessment proceedings, which finally resulted in approval of the order. Approval by Joint CIT Central range Raipur was in "normal course of duty" as the range head and assessing officer of Central charge (where only search related assessment are done) discuss the cases on a routine basis and continuous ®ular monitoring of assessment proceeding is done by range head from d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 2018-19 SI. Sl. No. Name of the Investor Company F.Y A.Y Amount of share capital/ Premium received 1 Basukinath Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 7500000 2 Jealous Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 7500000 3 Minimart Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd 2008-09 2009-10 1500000 4 Minimart Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd 2008-09 2009-10 7500000 5 Navdurga Barter Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 9000000 6 Shyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2008-09 2009-10 1500000 7 Shyam Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2008-09 2009-10 5000000 8 Srijan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 1 2008-09 2009-10 1000000 9 Srijan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 2500000 10 Bhagirathi Dealcom Pvt Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 3000000 11 Parrot Agencies and Credit Pvt Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 12000000 12 Brown Vinimay Pvt Ltd, Kolkata 2008-09 2009-10 5000000 13 Fastgrow Suppliers Pvt Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 8000000 14 Nayan Tie Up Pvt Ltd, Kolkata 2008-09 2009-10 9500000 15 Om Vanijya Pvt Ltd. 2008-09 2009-10 1500000 16 Success Tour & Travels Pvt 2008-09 2009-10 4000000 Total 86000000 1 Prith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1044 F.No. JCIT(C)/RPR/153D/2019-20/348 The Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (Central)-2, कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ 78 人 Dated: 30-12-2019 5027 (..) T Ahri Pramod Raipur Subject Approval u/s 153D of the I.T. Act-N. R. and Indermani Groups - Regarding. Please refer to your letters in F.No. DCIT(C)-2/RPR/Search assessment/2019-20 dated 26.12.2019 and dated 28.12.2019 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153D and 143(3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T. Act S.No. 51234 Name of the assessee N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. N.R. TMT (India) Pvt. Ltd. NRVS Steels Pvt. Ltd. Sambhavi Energy and Coal Benefication Pvt. Ltd. AY PAN AACCN6591Q 2009-10 to 2018-19 AAECP8302P 2012-13 to 2018-19 AAHCS4369L 2008-09 to 2018-19 AALCS5140B 2012-13 to 2018-19 3. Further in view of this office letter no. F.No. JCIT(C)/RPR/Draft Asst. Order/2016-17/ dated 09.09.2016 it is presumed that the AO has- given proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee thoroughly verified the seized material an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per valuation report submitted by the Govt. approved Valuer. Yours sincerely, (Sunny Kachhwaha) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central circle)-2. Raipur Document 11 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAIPUR To. NR ISPAT AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED 286,C/O OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL 286,C/O OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL PADAMPUR ROAD 493554.Chhattisgarh India PAN AY: AACCN6591Q 2018-19 DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/20 19-20/1023286938(1) Dated: 27/12/2019 Hearing Date and Time: 28/12/2019 02:00 PM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE कोष लो दणà¥à¤¡ Kindly refer to the above mentioned subjectPARTMENT In connection with above subject, it is stated that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was carried on 24.10.2017 in the Residential, Business and Factory Premises of NR Group of cases. During the course of search action, valuation of stock of raw materials, finished products and scrap have been made and huge difference of stock was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11 2011-12 12000000 Total 64200000 1 Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2011-12 2012-13 25900000 4 2 Shri Shyam Ply Traders 2011-12 2012-13 54200000 3 Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2011-12 2012-13 9000000 Total 89100000 1 Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 2013-14 69350000 2 Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2012-13 2013-14 1275000 3 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 4 Chirakoot Infonet Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 2013-14 13000000 2012-13 2013-14 15300000 Total 98925000 6 1 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2013-14 2014-15 6500000 Total 6500000 1 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2015-16 2016-17 1250000 7 Chirakoot Infonet Pvt. Ltd. 2015-16 2016-17 600000 आय Total 1850000 å“: (emphasis supplied by us) Document 13 SI. Name of the share No. applicant Amount of SAM 'Table-A' for identity of the share applicant-Co. & genuineness of the transaction Certificate No./ Distinctive No. of shares Date of allotted allotment received in (Nos.) of shares number AY1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 2011-12 2012-13 54200000 3 Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2011-12 2012-13 9000000 Total 89100000 1 Unnati Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 2013-14 69350000 2 Prithvi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2012-13 2013-14 1275000 10 5 3 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 2013-14 13000000 4 Chirakoot Infonet Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 2013-14 15300000 Total 98925000 6 1 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2013-14 2014-15 6500000 Total 6500000 1 Eternity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2015-16 2016-17 1250000 7 Chirakoot Infonet Pvt. Ltd. 2015-16 2016-17 600000 जायके Total 1850000 (emphasis supplied by us) Document 15 'Table-A' for identity of the share applicant-Co. & genuineness of the transaction Sl. Name of the share applicant Amount of SAM No. of shares allotted Date of allotment Certificate No./ Distinctive No. received in of shares number AY11-12 (Nos.) P.Ltd 1. Prithwi Dealcom (now known as NR TMT (India) P.Ltd) 2,59,00,000 2,07,200 shares 3-3-12 48-49/ allotted for Rs. 2....