Facts of the
Case
The present appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2009-10,
whereby the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The assessee, a company engaged in trading of
equity shares, securities, and commodities through recognized exchanges, filed
its return declaring total income of ₹90,70,540/-. The return was processed
under Section 143(1).
Subsequently, a search and seizure operation
under Section 132 was conducted on 30.03.2012 as part of the Jaypee Group.
During the search, computer data and documents were seized. Thereafter, notice
under Section 153A was issued and the assessee reiterated its earlier
return.
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed Client Code Modifications (CCM) carried out by group companies and concluded that such modifications were not genuine but done for profit/loss shifting. Based on a Special Audit under Section 142(2A), an addition of ₹22,16,30,832/- was made. Further, ₹60,000/- was disallowed under Section 40A(3).
Issues
Involved
- Whether additions under Section 153A can be made in the absence
of incriminating material found during search?
- Whether completed assessments (non-abated) can be disturbed without
fresh incriminating evidence?
- Validity of additions based on Client Code Modification allegations without seized material.
Petitioner’s
(Revenue) Arguments
- The Revenue contended that incriminating material was found
during the search, justifying additions.
- It relied on the assessment order stating that documents and data
were seized.
- It was argued that ITAT’s findings were perverse, and
additions were rightly made.
- The Revenue further submitted that at the time of assessment, the judgment in CIT vs Kabul Chawla was not available, hence detailed reference to incriminating material was not recorded.
Respondent’s
(Assessee) Arguments
- The assessee contended that no incriminating material
relating to the additions was found during the search.
- The assessment year in question was not pending (non-abated)
on the date of search.
- Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in CIT vs Kabul Chawla, wherein additions under Section 153A require incriminating material.
Court’s
Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the
CIT(A) and ITAT and held:
- No addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of
incriminating material for completed assessments.
- The Revenue failed to identify or produce any specific
incriminating material even before the Court.
- Mere general statements in the assessment order are insufficient
without concrete evidence.
- Findings of fact by CIT(A) and ITAT cannot be interfered with
lightly.
- The issue is squarely covered by the judgment in CIT vs Kabul Chawla.
Accordingly, the Court held that no substantial question of law arises and dismissed the appeal.
Important
Clarification
- Additions under Section 153A are restricted to incriminating
material found during search in cases of completed assessments.
- General allegations or audit observations without seized evidence cannot
justify additions.
- The burden lies on the Revenue to clearly demonstrate the existence of incriminating material.
Sections
Involved
- Section 260A – Appeal to High Court
- Section 153A – Assessment in case of search
- Section 132 – Search and Seizure
- Section 142(2A) – Special Audit
- Section 40A(3) – Disallowance of cash expenditure
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:2128-DB/MMH20072021ITA442021_234844.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