TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common, interconnected and inextricably interwoven issues involved therein, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, both the aforesaid matter are taken up for adjudication under this common order. 3. For adjudication of the common issues involved in the present appeals, we are taking up IT(SS)A No. 11/RPR/2022 as the lead case, wherein our decision rendered shall apply, mutatis mutandis to the other case. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in IT(SS)A No. 11/RPR/2022 are as under: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,19,00,000/- for the A.Yr. 2008-09 on account of share application money introduced by the Kolkata based paper companies, which has been made on the basis of clear finding by the AO and not substantiated by the assessee. 2. The order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing. 4.1 At the very inception, it is noticed that assessee had submitted an application under rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 with the regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....findings of the AO inter alia material brought on record. The appellant through its written submission has vehemently challenged the arbitrary approach of the AO mainly on two major Counts: (a) The Id AO erred in opening assessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12, beyond six years, in absence of any undisclosed asset; (b) The Id AO erred in making additions in non-abated assessment years and without having any incriminating/positive document on record; (a) The ld. AO erred in opening assessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12 beyond six years in absence of an undisclosed asset; 4.5 This issue has been assailed before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court simultaneously by the assessee under a writ petition, in disposal of which the issue qua assumption of jurisdiction of Ld. AO u/s. 153A in opening the assessment beyond the period of 06 years has been decided in favour of the revenue vide order dated 03.12.2020. Such judgment was not taken into consideration by the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the appellate order, therefore subsequently, when such a vital information was brought to the knowledge of Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee seeking rectific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed assessment years. However, the (ii) issue has already been dealt with in depth by Hon'ble Apex court, various High courts and tribunal and it is now settled legal pronouncement that no addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material in non-abated assessment year. This proposition find support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the Case of Meeta Gutgutia (2018) 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) dt. 2-7-18 affirming the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the same case reported in 82 taxmann.com 287. Hon'ble Delhi High Court along with various judgments followed the legal view taken by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). In the facts and circumstances, the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Raipur in the case of D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs Mahalaxmi Technocasr Ltd, Raipur (I.T.A. Nos. 256 to 259/RPR/2014) dated 25.10.2021 wherein various judicial pronouncements including judgment in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (supra) and Kabul Chawala (supra) have been followed. Relevant paras of this decision are reproduced here under: "14. We have carefully conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Del). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del); Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj); Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Devangi alias Rupa 2017- TIOL-319-HC-AHM-1T,* CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar), Pr. CIT-2 vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. 2016-TIOL-2099-HC-KOLIT and CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa (2016) 386 ITR 483 (Bom), Reference is also made to another two decisions of Hon'ble Delhi Court in Pr. CIT vs. Mahesh Kumar Gupta 2016-TIOL-2994-HC-Del and the decision dated 7th February, 2017 in ITA Nos. 61/2017 and 62/2017 in the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Ram Avtar Verma where the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra) was followed. The 'Hon'ble Delhi High Court made an exhaustive reference to the decisions noted above and held that invocation of Section 153A of the Act to reopen concluded assessments of earlier assessment years was not permissible in the absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such unabated assessment years. Eventually, the Hon'ble Delhi Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expressed in catena of decisions viz; Pr. CIT vs. Deepak J. Panchal (Guj) 397 ITR 153 (Guj); Chetnaben J. shah vs. ITO Tax Appeal No. 1437 of 2007 judgment dated 14.07.2016; CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom.); Pr. CIT vs. Desai Construction Pvt Ltd. 387 ITR 552 (Guj.); Gurinder Singh Baba 386 ITR 483 (Bom); & CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 398 ITR 586 (Bom.). 14.3.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Subhash Khattar ITA No. 60/2017 judgment dated 25.07.2017 also held against the Revenue in similar circumstances where search did not result in discovery of any incriminating material qua the assessee. It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that entire case against the assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of other parties and thus, it is apparent on the face of it that notice to assessee under s. 153A of the Act was misconceived since the so-called incriminating material was not found during the search of assessee 's premises. 14.3.6 On the conspectus of aforesaid judgments of different courts, the position of law is loud and clear that additions/disallowances unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s making additions in respect of concluded assessments towards undisclosed income is contrary to the judicial dicta. In consonance, we are of the view that various additions/disallowances made by the AO are clearly beyond the scope of authority vested under s. 153A of the Act without discharging the burden to show presence of any incriminating material or evidence deduced as a result of search in so far as completed assessments are concerned. Additions made in assessments framed under s. 153A of the Act in respect of captioned assessee pertaining to AYs. 2006-07 & 2009-10 are thus required to be struck down on this score itself However, the assessments/reassessments pending on the date of search i.e. AY 2010-11 & AY 2011-12 in question which stood abated by operation of law will continue to be governed by ordinary powers of assessment under s. 153A of the Act in accordance with law. 15. The legal ground of jurisdiction raised by the Assessee as per the cross objections, is thus allowed in respect of AY 2006-07 & 2009-10 in question. The additions made under S. 68 of the Act without showing incriminating documents are bad in law and thus requires to be struck down for AY 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted at the business premises of M/S NRVS Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 24/10/2017. 3. Consequently, notice u/s. 153A of the Act dated 01.08.2019 was issued for filing of returns for the A.Yrs. 2008-09 to 2017-18. Subsequently, assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 30/ 12/2019 for the A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19. 4. The AO made addition of Rs. 2,19,00,000/- in AY 2008-09 on account of bogus share capital/premium received from Kolkata based shell companies in books of assessee M/S NRVS Steels Ltd. This addition was made on the basis of incriminating material (Page 08,09 & 10 of BS-II, statement of investor company director, evasive reply of assessee company director, insignificant financials of investor companies etc.) found and seized during the course of search proceedings. 5. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT in the cross objection for the AY 2008-09 as under:- "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) ought to have considered the legal issue raised that if there is no incrimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents showing the receipt of share capital and premium from the year 2007-08 to 2013-14 totalling to Rs. 10,08,25,658/-various Kolkata based shell companies. As per the above seized materials, total share capital received during the F.Yr. 2008-09 from various Kolkata based shell companies:- Sl. No. Sl. No. Name of the Investor Company FY. AY Amount of share capital/Premium received 1 01 Gloria Credit & Cornmerce Pvt Ltd 2007-08 2008-09 400000 02 Patron Overseas Pvt, Ltd. 2007-08 2008-09 5300000 03 Sravasti Nidhi Pvt. Ltd 2007-08 2008-09 3400000 04 Sravasti Udyog Viniyog Pvt Ltd 2007-08 2008-09 12800000 10. Enquiries were conducted by the Investigation Wing in the investor companies which revealed that such companies do not exist at the given address. Shri Rajesh Agrawal (Past Director in NRVS Steel Ltd) was confronted with the enquiry report to which he expressed answer. During the course of post search proceedings statement of Shri Rajesh Agrawal was recorded u/s. 131 (IA) on 11.05.2018. In his statement he stated to have met Nandkishore Agrawal, the erstwhile director of Siddhi Vyapar Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 153A was issued for the AY 2008-09. 13. The balance sheet of investor companies were examined for the past several years. Except the amount of Share Capital reserve & surplus, current liabilities, noncurrent and current assets, no business activities were found. The activities of the assessee company are to route out of capital to the assessee company. The analysis is as under:- 8. GLORIA CREDIT 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 S.C 8201880 8291880 8291880 Security Premium Reserve 56534001 61238750 61238750 Investment 46800000 48600000 45390000 Turn over/Sales 427882 700358 635078 PBDIT 35756 62027 51323 10. PATRON OVERSEAS 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 S.C 10235000 6250000 Security Premium Reserve 51209508 55399511 Investment 14548 8729 Turn over/Sales 633859 116770 PBDIT 51206 13511 13. SRAVASTI NIDHI PRIVATE LIMITED 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 S.C 7395780 8895780 7585780 Security Premium Reserve 34144993 3415....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition made by the AO wrt Rs. 2,19,00,000/- on account of bogus Share capital/ premium received by the assessee from paper entities in AY 2008-09. "Incriminating material" 15. The assessee has raised ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in the cross appeal that for the AY 2008-09, there is no incriminating material / documents found during the course of search from premises of the assessee, hence addition is liable to be deleted. 16. Shri Rajesh Agrawal (director in NRVS Steel Ltd) stated in the statement recorded on 131 (IA) of the act that he has no record to support the justification, rationale and basis of share application and premium coming from Kolkata-based companies, to M/S Seleno Steels Ltd (earlier name of M/S NRVS Steel Ltd). The same has confronted with the specific reference of documents seized as page No. 8,9 & 10 of BS-II seized from the office premise of M/S Seleno Steels Ltd. From the above documents it was established that the assessee company has received share capital/premium from Kolkata based shell companies during the F.Y. 2007-08. Hence, page No. No. 8,9 & 10 of BS-II seized from the office premises are incriminating do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily constitute incriminating for purposes of 153A/C of Act also. 22. 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:- (a) misrepresentation or suppression of acts; (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; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) 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. 23. Thus, if on account of search, the facts and circumstances suggest that any entry already appearing in books or accepted in earlier assessments based on documents submitted at that point of time, are camouflaged or manipulated or misrepresented or suppressed in value or reflected to be in the nature or from a source which is different from the real nature or source a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses as claimed in returns or any other documents, etc filed earlier. 26. 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 that the earlier claim made in books of accounts/ returns etc. were false and contrary to real situation on ground. 27. 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. 28. Even a statement recorded during search & survey operation shall also constitute incriminating material to dislodge any earlier finding for the purpose of making an assessment under section 153A of the Act. 29. The apex court in PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) P Ltd 94 Taxmann.com 115 (SC) has admitted an SLP by revenue against the order of High Court wherein the High Court had held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nating material, in view of the above judicial pronouncements. Conclusion In view of all the facts circumstances of the case, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee company for the A.Y. 2008-09 at 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 BS-II bearing page No. 08,09, & 10 and also the statement recorded of previous director of NRVS Steel Ltd Shri Rajesh Agrawal along with the dubious financials of investor companies are incriminating in nature- 1. The assessee received share capital/ premium from Kolkata based shell companies and the primary onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of the investor companies was not discharged by the assessee specially when the investigation by the department bringing sufficient evidences about the investor companies being shell/ bogus entities. 2. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal in the cross examination that there was no incriminating material. The phrase "incriminating material" is neither defined in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e capital / premium from Kolkata based shell Companies and, therefore, the primary onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was on the assessee, which the assessee in present case has failed to discharge. It is further submitted by the revenue that the word "incriminating material" as used by the courts in context of section 153A/153C needs to be understood in the context of events of misreporting and under-reporting as define in section 270A(9) for the purpose of levy of penalty. The provisions of section 153A / 153C are not the normal assessment provisions like 143(3), rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of misreporting or underreporting of taxable income based on evidence found in pursuance to search. The phrase "incrementing material" is neither defined in section 153A nor defined in the income tax Act and hence the implication of this term is required to the understood in the context of misreporting and / or under reporting along with intent and purpose of the provisions of Search and Seizure under Income Tax Act, which clearly revealed, the existence of incriminating material to initiate the proceedings u/s. 153A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndate is cast upon the AO to issue notice u/s. 153A and complete the assessment of 6 AYs (and for the relevant AY or years); that object of scheme legislated for assessment in search cases is to bring to tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of or pursuant to search or requisition and therefore, additions/disallowances must be linked with search/ requisition; that additions made on the basis of some materials collected by the AO much subsequent to the search is not permissible. 1.11. Sec. 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition It is well-settled as held by the Hon'ble SC in a catena of decisions that the heading of the sec can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the sec and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the sec strengthens that meaning. From the heading of sec. 153A, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not amount to passing of the assessment order because the assessment order, in such circumstances, is passed after due scrutiny u/s. 143(3). There can he only one assessment order for one year. 1.17. The crux of the matter is that where no notice u/s. 143(2) is issued within the permissible maximum time, the issuance of Intimation on processing the return u/s. 143(1), is construed as completion of assessment. However, where such notice is issued, the intimation issued u/s. 143(l)(a) loses the character of an assessment order, which in that case, is passed u/s. 143(3) after thorough scrutiny. 1.18. To sum up, an assessment is termed as completed on the passing of an order u/s. 143(3), but, in a case, where a return has been filed by the assessee, which is processed u/s. 143(l), but no further notice u/s. 143(2) is issued and the same cannot be issued because of the time limit setting in, the Intimation sent to the assessee u/s. 143(l) is also treated as a completed assessment for this purpose. 1.19. That, the AYs having 'non-completed' or 'pending' assessments mean the years for which the assessments were pending on the date of search w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n again, he has not surrendered admitted any kind of undisclosed income in any manner on behalf of the assessee Co. for the alleged AY 08-09. 1.24 and the Ld. AO only relying on the alleged piece of seized paper (i.e., BS-11, Pg. no. 8,09, 10 as mentioned in Pg. No. 8 to 11 in the assessment order dt. 30.12.2019 which is nothing but various statutory forms like, Form No. 23 for allotment of shares, Form No. 2 for allotment of shares; Form No. 32 for appointment as director & cessation from directorship; Annual return-2002, AGM 24.12.02 & Balance sheet-2002, and thus, the alleged seized papers are various statutory returns & forms which had already disclosed to the revenue-deptt. and duly disclosed in the regular audited books of account of the assessee-Co. in the relevant year, more so, which has been submitted before the ROC in company law matters and nothing else, which had already been disclosed in the audited books of account of the assessee-Co; duly disclosed in the original ROI filed for the respective AY's before the revenue-department; more so, it was regularly scrutinized u/s. 143(3) for consecutive 2 AY's (i.e., for the AY 12-13 u/s. 143(3) on dt. 9-2-15 by the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition or disallowances made u/s. 153A is valid and lawful and cannot be restricted or limited to incriminating seized material etc and rejected the contention of the assessee Co (in last para of the Pg No. 28 & 29 of the assessment order dt. 30.12.19). 1.28 ........Against the observation of the Ld. AO, it is submitted that these 2 cases of Hon'ble Del Hc & All HC, had duly been considered in Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Meeta Gutgutia (2017) (Del HC) extensively and both these cases duly affirmed by the Hon'ble SC in Kabul Chawla (SC) 380 ITR (St.4) & Meeta Gutgutia (2018) (SC) dt. 2.7.18; and further in Vimal Kumar Rathi (2020) (SC) dt. 06.1.20; Caprihans India Ltd. (2020) (SC) dt. 30.09.2019; Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) (SC) dt. 29.08.17; Kurule Paper Mills (P) Ltd (2015) (SC) dt. 7.12.2015. the Hon'ble SC concluded that completed assessment could not be abated unless some incriminating evidence or material was found during search qua additions made by AO ; in other words, in search assessment u/s. 153A for an unabated assessment, in absence of any incriminating material / documents found during the course of search qua the alleged addition made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d surmises, general observation made by the ld. AO, presumption about modus operandi on the basis of disclosed transactions and audited balance sheet and replies & documents submitted by the assessee-Co etc., which is not permissible in the eyes of law in search assessments u/s. 153A for an unabated assessment in absence of any incriminating material/ documents found during the course of search qua the alleged addition, may kindly be deleted. This legal position for an unabated assessment in search cases u/s. 153A has now been well settled by the Hon'ble SC again and again in the cases of Vimal Kumar Rathi (2020) (SC) dt. 02.07.18; Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) (SC) dt. 29.08.17; Kurule Paper Mills (P) Ltd. (2015) (SC) dt. 7.12.15; Kabul Chawla (SC) 380 ITR (St.)4. 1.32. Same principle of law in search assessment u/s. 153A for an unabated assessment on the date of search, has been upheld in the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional MP HC in the case of Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (2020) 117 taxmann.com 117 (MP HC) dt. 12-7-19, wherein the legal issue/ legal question of law was as to- "whether in absence of any incriminating documents seized during the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Deptt in Meeta Gutgutia, the legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Del HC in Kabul Chawla have attained finality. That Hon'ble MP HC in Darshan Talkies (1996) (MP HC) in which it is held as under: "The decision of the HC is binding and the pendency of a petition for special leave to appeal to the SC from such a decision cannot obliterate its impact. It is binding until it is reversed or overruled." 1.35. It is submitted that TS Santanam v. Expenditure Tax Officer 87 ITR 582 (Mad TIC) while considering the Rule of Finality held "the essential principle as to the Rule of Finality of an assessment is that the AO cannot change his mood and try to reopen the closed state of affairs. 1.36. Thus. the Rule of Finality apply in this case clearly show that legal proposition decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional MP HC in Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (2020) 117 taxmann.com 117 (MP HC) dt. 12-7-19, has reached finality that: "Completed assessment can be interfered with by AO while making the assessments u/s. 153.4 only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search which was not produced or not already disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume 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 u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) that in case 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 asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal Nos. 15617/2017, 10267/2017, 10266/2017 & 10268/2017 16. Insofar as the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee - Dayawanti through legal heir against the impugned common judgment and order dated 27-10-2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA Nos. 357/2015, 358/2015, 565/2015 and 566/2015. The question before the High 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. 4.13 Backed with the aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that since the year under consideration are undisputedly non-abated assessment years and there was no incriminating material unearthed during the search, therefore, in absence of any incriminating material following the ratio of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Abhishar Buildwell (supra), wherein the principal laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has stated that he has no record to support the justification, rational and basis of share application & premium coming from Kolkata based companies to M/s Seleno Steel Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO further provided the details of financials of the investor companies, emphasizing that the said companies have no business activity in last 7 years and even there returned of income (ROI) have shown very meagre / no income, the turnover of such companies are also noted to be negligible or zero, they are running at a very low profit or loss. It was the observation of Ld. AO that the identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the transaction could not be established by the assessee, therefore, addition of Rs. 2.19 crore and 2.25 crore was made for the AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 u/s. 68 of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order, it is emanating that the assessee had received share capital/ premium from the investors based at Kolkata having NIL/ meagre income and the onus of identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transaction could not be discharged by the assessee. Under this scenario, referring to the order of Ld. CIT(A), who had vacated the addition on the basis of no incrimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion are not in the nature of incriminating document / material, therefore, respectfully following the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell (supra), we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) had rightly and judiciously decided the issue by vacating the addition of Rs. 2.19 crore for the AY 2008-09, thus, we concur with the finding of Ld. CIT(A), which is not found to be suffering with any infirmity to be interfered with, we, therefore, approve the same. 4.17 Resultantly, the grounds of appeal raised by the department in IT(SS)A No. 11/RPR/2022, stands dismissed. 5. Having similar facts, circumstances and decisions for the AY 2009-10 by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) under their common orders, thus, our decision rendered in IT(SS)A No. 11/RPR/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis on the issue in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2022. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the department in IT(SS)A No. 12/RPR/2022, also stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with, we may herein observe that in absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search from the premises of assessee for an unabated / completed assessment year, but certa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1-4-17; in absence of a valid approval as mandated by law u/s. 153D as per sec. 153B(1)(a); assessment made u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) would be invalid, bad in law & non-est and is liable to be quashed. 8.1 At the outset, it is noticed that the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are delayed by 09 days, in justification explaining the delay, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that it was occasioned on account of late receipt of the Form 36A from the assessee, which was sent from Raigarh to Raipur through courier on 27.09.2022, but the same was delivered at Raipur on 06.10.2022 and thereafter immediately the form was filed with the registry of ITAT on 07.10.2022. Being the delay found to be caused due late delivery of the post by courier agency, it may be considered to be on account of genuine reasons beyond the control of assessee, the application for condonation of delay, there has been accepted and the delay is condoned. 8.2 Ground No. 1: Regarding jurisdiction of the Ld. AO to reopen the assessment u/s. 153A On this issue, Ld. AR had submitted a written submission dated 30.03.2023, withdrawing the said ground, the same is extracted as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r observations for CO No. 17/RPR/2022, thus, partly allowed. 10. In Combined result, both the aforesaid appeals of Department in ITA 11&12/RPR/2022 are rendered as dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee stands partly allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/08/2024. ============= Document 1 NUS.NIEYS Steels Lad A Y08-09 Before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur dt.21-5-24 Assessee: M/s. NRVS Steels Ltd. Bhagwanpur, Noar Park Avenue Phimrapur Road Raigarh (CG)- 496001 PAN-AAHCS4369L ITSS No.11/RPR/2022 (D) AY08-09 Application for withdrawing application made under Rule-27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 The respondent-assessee-Co has filed an application under Rule-27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 for the AYO8-09 on 7-10-22 and thereafter, revised on 30-3-23 and 20-5-24; it is humbly requested that, we withdraw the above application made under Rule-27 for the AY08-09 before your Honor, kindly consider the same and obliged. Yours faithfully 4 Sunil Kumar agrawal Counsel for the-assessce-Co Document 2Document 3Document 4Document 5 पà¥à¤°à¤¶à....