TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 21 crore despite the adverse evidence that the nature and source of the cash credit was unexplained and the sum had been routed through shell companies. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition which was not based on incriminating material found during the search could not be made in assessment u/s 153A of the I.T.Act and, consequently, deleting addition of Rs. 21 crore without going into merits of the same. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out in the Sanjay Singhal Group of cases on 15/11/2017. A search warrant of authorization u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 22/06/2020, the Department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in deleting the addition despite the adverse evidence that the nature and source of the cash credit was unexplained and the same had been routed through shell Companies. Further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in holding That 'addition which was not based on incriminating material found during the search could not be made in the assessment u/s 153A of the Act' and consequently committed error in deleting the addition without going into the merit of the case. The Ld. Department's Representative sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of search, then the same shall lead to invocation of provisions of search assessments. The copies of these decisions are enclosed herewith for kind reference." 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the addition made by the A.O. is beyond the scope of provision of Section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material or evidence had been found during the course of search so as to make the addition of loan as has been made by the A.O. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on the findings and conclusions of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the case of the Assessee is squarely covered by Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell reported in 2023(4) TMI (056)(S.C) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... When the Ld. A.O. himself has not referred the incriminating seized material in the assessment order in order to make the addition, the Department cannot improve the case of the A.O. before the Tribunal by reading something which is not written in the assessment order. 9. In so far as, the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the Ld. Departmental Representative in the case of K. Krishna Murthy (supra), the subject matter of the said case was penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, wherein the addition has been made on account of undisclosed income arising out of search and the said addition has been made based upon own admission of the Assessee during the course of the search and since a quantum was confirmed, the penalty u/s 271AAA w....