TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... additions made in the assessment order included Rs. 1,85,79,515/- towards unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT Act; Rs. 5,57,385/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 33,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In assessment year 2016-17, assessment order dated 31/12/2018 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052325703(1) was passed u/s 153A read with section 144 of the Act wherein the assessee's total income was determined at Rs. 58,99,020/- as against returned income of Rs. 14,74,020/-. In the aforesaid assessment order for assessment year 2016-16, addition of Rs. 44,25,000/- was made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The aforesaid assessment orders were passed consequent to search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act in Ramesh Group of cases on 08/07/2016. The Assessing Officer passed the aforesaid assessment order by assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act; search warrant u/s 132 of the Act having been issued in the name of the assessee. Both the aforesaid assessment orders were passed ex-parte qua the assessee. The assessee filed appeals against the aforesaid assessment orders in the office of the learned CIT(A). I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 Taxmann.com 399 (SC) and in the case of Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. [2023] 150 Taxmann.com 108 (SC). He further submitted that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has also issued instruction regarding implementation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (Instruction No. 1 of 2023 [F.No.279/Misc./M-54/2023-ITJ] dated 23/08/2023, directing the field authorities to implement the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) in uniform manner. He submitted that the aforesaid Instruction dated 23/08/2023 of CBDT, directing the field authorities to implement the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, was binding on Revenue authorities. He further submitted that various Courts and Benches of the ITAT have considered the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and have decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue following the aforesaid ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Trib.) (29) Ishtiaq Ahmad Dar vs. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 662 (Amritsar-Trib.) (30) Income Tax Officer vs. Ramchandra Setty & Sons [2024] 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bangalore-Trib.) (31) Dy. CIT vs. Arunachal Pradesh Power Corporation (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1369 (Guwahati-Trib.) (32) Naresh Manakchand Jain vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No.247 & 240 to 244/Mum/2023, order dated 27/06/2024 (B.1) In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions made in the aforesaid assessment order, which were confirmed by learned CIT(A) in aforesaid impugned appellate orders, each dated 25/04/2023 should be deleted. (B.2) Learned D.R. for Revenue submitted that impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A) were passed following order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora 367 ITR 517 (Allahabad). He also submitted that the impugned appellate orders of the learned CIT(A) also took support from decisions reported in CIT vs. K. P. Ummer 413 ITR 251 (Kar), CIT vs. Ormo Marble Palace P Ltd. 308 CTR 584 (Ker.), Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Center vs. DCIT 362 ITR 664 (Ker.) and E. N. Gopakumar [2016] 75 taxmann.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....criminating 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 fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and revie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur Balaji 447 ITR 517 (All.), CIT vs. K. P. Ummer 413 ITR 251 (Ker.), Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre vs. DCIT 362 ITR 664 (Ker.), E. N. Gopakumar 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala), etc. The issue has now been finally settled by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) wherein view in favour of assessee has been taken. (C.2.1) In the present appeals before us, the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the IT Act. Further, we have already noted earlier that the relevant facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further it is also not in dispute that no assessment proceedings were pending in the cases of the assessee at the time of search conducted on 08/07/2016 in the case....