Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (5) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1069624559(1), respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)" for short]. The assessee has raised similar grounds in all the six appeals except the change in figures. For the sake of brevity and convenience, all the appeals are disposed of through this consolidated order. (2). The grounds of appeal are as under: - IT(SS)A. No. 710/LKW/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- u/s 68 which was shown as liability in balance sheet of the appellant company. 2. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be taken up during the course of appeal proceedings." IT(SS)A. No. 711/LKW/2024 1. The appellate authority has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,28,00,000/- u/s 68 which was shown as liability in balance sheet of the appellant comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be taken up during the course of appeal proceedings." IT(SS)A. No. 719/LKW/2024 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, which was credited in the bank account of the assessee. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, which was credited in the bank account of the assessee, without appreciating the facts of the case. That the approval u/s 153D was given just in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 3. That no incriminating material was found during search proceedings and the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 4. Any other ground of appeal that may be taken up during the course of appeal proceedings (2.1). In these cases, search & seizure operations were conducted in Ramesh Group of cases, under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "I.T. Act"); in pursuance whereof asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in favour of the assessee, relying on the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra). The relevant portion of the order of Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT (supra) is reproduced as under: - "(C) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. There is no dispute regarding relevant facts. 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 of the assessee, u/s 132 of the IT Act. Further, as no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 08/07/2016, the case of the assessee falls in the category of unabated/completed assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and within the meaning of order passed in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which stand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in respect of the completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made in assessment order passed u/s 153A or passed u/s 153C of the IT Act in respect of which incriminating materials were not found in the course of search action u/s 132A of the Act; although Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers u/s 147/148 of the IT Act subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned u/s 147/148 of the IT Act. Thus, although the powers of the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the IT Act were saved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), subject to fulfillment of conditions envisaged u/s 147/148 of the IT Act; it has been categorically held that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made u/s 153A or under section 153C of the Act if incriminating material was not found / unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 of the IT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra). In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before us, and further, as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, we are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the 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) and by the aforesaid instruction No. 1 of 2023 of CBDT, which is binding on Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made amounting to a total of Rs. 2,24,81,900/- for assessment year 2015-16 and addition amounting to Rs. 44,25,000/- for assessment year 2016-17. (C.2.2) Since we have directed that the aforesaid additions be deleted, the other issues regarding merits of the additions made in the aforesaid two years, become ....