2025 (9) TMI 1242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that the Assessee is based in Dehradun and his Authorized Representative who is handling the matter located in Delhi, due to co- ordination and logistic issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing the above Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing the Appeals are hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, the difference in the Valuation as per the Report and the value shown by the assessee company for the year under consideration was treated as unexplained investment not fully disclosed in books of accounts accordingly, made addition u/s 69B of the Act in all the years under consideration vide assessment orders dated 28/12/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2015-16. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 28/12/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2015-16, the Assessee preferred the five Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 08/01/2025, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee. As against the orders dated 18/01/2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals. 8. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee in all the Appeals. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The addition has been made based on the statement of one of the Directors who has stated to have invested unaccounted income in the hospital building construction. The Authorized Officer referred the hospital building for valuation to DVO and based on the report of the DVO, it was found that there was difference in the value of investment as disclosed by the Assessee in its books of account and as estimated by the DVO. The Ld. A.O. treated the statement of the Director who has admitted to have invested unaccounted money in construction of hospital building as incriminating material. Further, the A.O. also found that the cost of cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under:- "14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: 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 fulfill....