Facts of the
Case
The assessee, a real estate
company, was subjected to search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 on
05.12.2013 as part of a group search. Pursuant thereto, notice under Section
153A was issued requiring filing of returns.
For Assessment Year 2011-12, the
assessee had originally filed its return declaring income of ₹4,17,790, which
had been processed under Section 143(1). In response to the Section 153A
notice, the assessee filed a return declaring the same income.
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown ₹2.50 crore as sundry creditor in the name of Shri Ajeya Singh. According to the AO, the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The amount was therefore treated as unexplained cash credit and added to income under Section 68 in an assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 144.
Issues Involved
- Whether an addition under Section 68 can be
made in a completed assessment year during proceedings under Section 153A
in the absence of incriminating material found during search.
- Whether the amount of ₹2.50 crore shown as
sundry creditor constituted unexplained cash credit or a genuine trade
advance.
- Applicability of judicial precedents regarding
the scope of assessments under Section 153A.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section
68 as the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness, and
creditworthiness of the creditor.
- Even in absence of incriminating material, the
AO has the power to assess total income under Section 153A.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly relied on
the decision in Kabul Chawla and ignored jurisdictional High Court rulings
such as Raj Kumar Arora.
- The financial statements did not clearly
establish the source or nature of the amount received.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The original assessment for the relevant year
was already completed and no proceedings were pending on the date of
search; therefore, the assessment did not abate.
- No incriminating material relating to the
impugned amount was found during search.
- The amount represented a trade advance
received through banking channels for purchase of land, duly recorded in
books of account.
- Confirmation, PAN details, bank statements,
and supporting documents of the creditor were furnished.
- The advance was later returned through banking
channels when the land transaction did not materialize.
- Reliance was placed on various judicial
precedents holding that additions in non-abated years require
incriminating material.
Court Order / Findings (ITAT — Dissenting Order Context)
- The Tribunal examined whether the assessment
year under consideration had abated on the date of search.
- Since the return had already been processed
and no assessment proceedings were pending, the year was treated as a
completed (non-abated) assessment year.
- In such circumstances, additions under Section
153A can generally be made only on the basis of incriminating material
discovered during search.
- The amount of ₹2.50 crore was recorded in the
books as a trade advance received through banking channels.
- No specific incriminating document relating to
this transaction was found during the search.
- Consequently, the addition made under Section
68 lacked the necessary foundation of search-based evidence.
- The appellate authority’s deletion of the
addition was therefore examined in light of judicial precedents on the
scope of Section 153A.
Important Clarification
- For completed (non-abated) assessment years,
the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 153A is restricted, and
additions ordinarily require incriminating material found during search.
- Amounts recorded in regular books of account
and transacted through banking channels may not automatically qualify as
unexplained credits in absence of adverse evidence.
- The distinction between trade advances and
unsecured loans is relevant when applying Section 68.
Link to download the order - https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1651753363-Final%20Dissenting%20Order%20ITA%20No.%20103%20Alld%202017.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment