Facts of the Case
The assessee, M/s Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., filed its return
of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring total income of ₹17,25,39,330
under normal provisions and ₹51,82,85,619 under Section 115JB. A search and
seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted on 17.09.2021 on the Agarwal
Group and its associate concerns, including the assessee. Pursuant thereto, the
assessment was reopened under Section 147 by issuance of notice under Section
148 dated 06.09.2022. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under
Sections 143(3)/147 by making, inter alia, an addition of ₹29,93,22,967 on
account of alleged undisclosed cash purchases of coal from the Anup Majee
Group, based on documents seized during searches conducted earlier on the Anup
Majee Group and related persons. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening
and restricted the addition by applying a gross profit rate of 8.01 percent on
the alleged undisclosed purchases. Both the assessee and the Revenue filed
cross appeals before the Tribunal for multiple assessment years.
Issues Involved
Whether reopening under Section 148 after a post-01.04.2021 search was
valid in the absence of incriminating material found during the assessee’s
search, whether reliance on seized material from third-party searches was
permissible, whether the entire value of alleged undisclosed purchases could be
added as income, and whether only the profit element embedded in such purchases
was liable to tax.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The assessee contended that no incriminating material was found during
the search conducted on it and therefore reopening under Section 148 was
invalid. It was argued that the additions were based solely on documents and
statements obtained from searches conducted on third parties prior to
01.04.2021 and that, at best, proceedings could have been initiated under
Section 153C. On merits, the assessee submitted that there was no independent
verification by the Assessing Officer, no corroborative evidence of undisclosed
purchases, no rejection of books of account, and no evidence of unaccounted
production or sales. It was further contended that denial of cross-examination
of third parties vitiated the additions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Revenue argued that Explanation 2 to Section 148 creates a deeming
fiction whereby the Assessing Officer is deemed to have information suggesting
escapement of income where a search is initiated on or after 01.04.2021. It was
submitted that under the new search regime, reopening under Section 148 is
mandatory for the specified assessment years irrespective of whether
incriminating material is found during the assessee’s search. On merits, the
Revenue contended that detailed seized material, transportation records, and
statements clearly established undisclosed purchases of coal and justified the
additions, though only the profit element was taxable.
Court Order / Findings
The ITAT Kolkata held that in cases of search initiated on or after
01.04.2021, Explanation 2 to Section 148 comes into operation and the Assessing
Officer is deemed to possess information suggesting escapement of income,
making issuance of notice under Section 148 valid even in the absence of
incriminating material found during the assessee’s search. The Tribunal
rejected the assessee’s challenge to the reopening and upheld the validity of
proceedings under Sections 148 and 147. On merits, the Tribunal agreed with the
CIT(A) that while the seized third-party material and surrounding circumstances
established undisclosed purchases of coal, the entire value of such purchases
could not be taxed as income. Following the binding judgment of the Calcutta
High Court in PCIT vs. Subarna Rice Mill and other precedents, the Tribunal
held that only the profit element embedded in the undisclosed purchases was
liable to be brought to tax. The application of a gross profit rate of 8.01
percent on the alleged undisclosed purchases was held to be reasonable and
justified.
Important Clarification
The Tribunal clarified that under the post-01.04.2021 search regime,
reopening under Section 148 operates on a statutory deeming fiction and does
not require discovery of incriminating material at the stage of issuance of
notice. However, for the purpose of computation of income, settled law requires
that where undisclosed purchases are detected, only the profit element embedded
therein can be assessed, as corresponding sales and business operations are
presumed.
Final Outcome
The appeals filed by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening
were dismissed. The additions on account of alleged undisclosed purchases were
sustained only to the extent of gross profit at 8.01 percent, and the balance
additions were deleted. The Revenue’s appeals seeking enhancement were
dismissed. Overall, the orders of the CIT(A) restricting the additions to the
profit element were upheld across the relevant assessment years.
Source Link- https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1767345051-4JhUzj-1-TO.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