Facts of the Case

The assessee, Shri Uma Shankar Ailani, an individual deriving income from house property, salary, interest, and partnership sources, was subjected to a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act at his residential and business premises.

Pursuant to the search, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 153A for multiple assessment years and completed assessments by making additions on account of unexplained deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts under Section 69. For each of the years under consideration, the additions were primarily based on such deposits.

The assessee challenged the additions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], contending that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals and confirmed the additions. The assessee also filed rectification applications under Section 154, which were rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the ITAT against both the appellate orders and the rectification orders.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether additions under Section 69 for bank deposits were valid in search assessments under Section 153A.
  2. Whether additions could be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
  3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals and rejecting rectification applications.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The assessee argued that the assessments were invalid as they ignored the fundamental principles governing search assessments.
  • It was contended that no incriminating evidence relating to the impugned deposits was found during the search operation.
  • The assessee maintained that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under Section 153A without such material.
  • It was further submitted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate key legal grounds raised in appeal and wrongly rejected the rectification applications.

Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The Revenue supported the assessment orders and the findings of the CIT(A).
  • It was contended that the unexplained bank deposits justified additions under Section 69.
  • The Department argued that proceedings under Section 153A empower the Assessing Officer to reassess total income for the relevant years following a search.
  • The rejection of rectification applications was defended as legally proper.

Court Order / Findings (ITAT)

  • The Tribunal examined the search proceedings, assessment orders, and appellate findings.
  • It considered the legal position regarding additions in search assessments where no incriminating material is discovered.
  • The ITAT evaluated whether the CIT(A) had properly addressed the grounds raised by the assessee.
  • Based on the facts and legal principles applicable, the Tribunal adjudicated the validity of the additions and the appellate orders, granting relief or directions as warranted.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that in respect of completed assessments, additions under Section 153A should ordinarily be based on incriminating material found during the search. At the same time, unexplained deposits may attract taxation under Section 69 if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain their source. The case underscores the balance between search powers of the Revenue and protection against arbitrary reassessment.

Link to download the order –

https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1608269525-UMASHANKAR%20AILANI%20ITA%20No.%20145%20to%20150%20and%20ITA%20No.%20353%20to%20350.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.