Facts of the
Case
The present appeal was filed by the Revenue
challenging the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2009–10.
The assessee had filed its return declaring income
of ₹9.93 crores, which was initially processed under Section 143(1) and later
assessed under Section 143(3) at the returned income.
Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under
Section 132 was conducted. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer
(AO) noted a significant increase in share capital and share premium and
required the assessee to justify the same.
The AO passed an order dated 31.03.2015 making an
addition of ₹8 crores under Section 68 on the ground that the assessee failed
to satisfactorily establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the
transactions.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, observing that no incriminating material was found during the search. The ITAT upheld this finding.
Issues
Involved
- Whether addition under Section 68 can be made in assessment under
Section 153A without any incriminating material found during search?
- Whether completed (non-abated) assessments can be disturbed in
absence of seized evidence?
- Scope and interpretation of Sections 153A and 68 in search assessments.
Petitioner’s
Arguments (Revenue)
- The ITAT erred in holding that addition cannot be made without
incriminating material.
- Incriminating evidence was allegedly discovered during a
simultaneous search on an entry operator (Tarun Goel), and information was
received through the Investigation Wing.
- The AO used such material as a starting point for further
investigation, which resulted in the addition.
- The scope of incriminating material should not be restricted only to documents seized from the assessee.
Respondent’s
Arguments (Assessee)
- No incriminating material was found during the search relating to
the impugned addition.
- The case was of a completed (non-abated) assessment.
- Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including:
- CIT vs Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del)
- PCIT vs Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 82 taxmann.com 287 (Del)
- It was argued that in absence of incriminating material, no addition can be made under Section 153A.
Court’s
Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal
and held:
- Both CIT(A) and ITAT recorded concurrent findings that no
incriminating material was found during the search.
- The assessment in question was a non-abated (completed)
assessment.
- The AO himself admitted in the remand report that no documents were
seized nor any admission was made by the assessee.
- Following the ratio laid down in Kabul Chawla, the Court
reiterated that:
- Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A only
on the basis of incriminating material found during search.
- Since no such material existed, the addition under Section 68 was
unsustainable.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Important
Clarifications
- Even though the judgment in Kabul Chawla is pending before
the Supreme Court, there is no stay, and it continues to hold the
field.
- The Court clarified that the outcome of this case will be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP.
Sections
Involved
- Section 68 – Unexplained Cash Credits
- Section 132 – Search and Seizure
- Section 153A – Assessment in Case of Search
- Section 143(1) & 143(3) – Regular Assessment
- Section 147 – Reassessment
Link to download the
order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/58914112022ITA292019_212016.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