SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA No.728to731/Amr/2019 Assessment Year’s 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17 V.S. ACIT Central Circle-2 Smt. Jatinder Kaur (Alias Amrita) 326-A, Guru Teg Bahadur nagar, Jhalandar Jhalandar Punjab Punjab PAN: AALPA2363B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sh. Y.K.Sud & Sh. S.S. Kalra, CA’s Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, D.R.

Date of Hearing 09.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

These are the group of four appeals filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) on 29.11.2019. we are reproducing herein below the grounds raised by the assessee in each of the appeal

728/Amr/2019

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 2

The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) - 5, Ludhiana sustaining an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is against law and facts of the case.

2 That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act and further CIT(A) while upholding the jurisdiction failed to appreciate that no incriminating document was found pertaining to the year under assessment during the search in the premises of the assessee. 3 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5 Lacs made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of

proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company of the father known as M/s. Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, U.A.E. is not exempt and therefore taxable without appreciating the fact that the Company as per evidence filed was fully controlled by the father of the assessee and the amount of Gift had enrouted through the current A/c of his father in the books of account of the Company and thus was fully exempt as per provisions of section 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

729/Amr/ 2019]

1 The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) - 5, Ludhiana sustaining an addition of Rs. 24,46,114/- is against law and facts of the case.

That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the jurisdiction 2 assumed by the A.O. u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act and further CIT(A) while upholding the jurisdiction failed to appreciate that no incriminating document was found pertaining to the year under assessment during the search in the premises of the assessee. 3 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 24,46,114/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 3

4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company of the father known as M/s. Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, U.A.E. is not exempt and therefore taxable without appreciating the fact that the Company as per evidence filed was fully controlled by the father of the assessee and the amount of Gift had enrouted through the current A/c of his father in the books of account of the Company and thus was fully exempt as per provisions of section 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

5 Such other grounds as may be urged on hearing.

730/am/2019

1 The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) - 5, Ludhiana sustaining an addition of Rs. 28,99,550/- is against law and facts of the case.

2 That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act and further CIT(A) while upholding the jurisdiction failed to appreciate that no incriminating document was found pertaining to the year under assessment during the search in the premises of the assessee. 3 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,99,550/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company of the father known as M/s. Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, U.A.E. is not exempt and therefore taxable without appreciating the fact that the Company as per evidence filed was fully controlled by the father of the assessee and the amount of Gift had enrouted through the current A/c of his father in the books of account of the Company and thus was fully exempt as per provisions of section 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

731/Amr/2019

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 4

1 The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) - 5, Ludhiana sustaining an addition of Rs. 43,99,885/- is against law and facts of the case.

2 That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act and further CIT(A) while upholding the jurisdiction failed to appreciate that no incriminating document was found pertaining to the year under assessment during the search in the premises of the assessee.

3 That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section 68 of proving the cash credit were satisfied by the assessee the addition should have been deleted rather than upholding the same u/s 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

4 That even otherwise on facts too, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Gift to the daughter by his father during the year which came from the Bank A/c of the Company of the father known as M/s. Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, U.A.E. is not exempt and therefore taxable without appreciating the fact that the Company as per evidence filed was fully controlled by the father of the assessee and the amount of Gift had enrouted through the current A/c of his father in the books of account of the Company and thus was fully exempt as per provisions of section 56(1)(vii) of the Act.

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 5

"Sub:- Written submission in the case of Smt. Jatinder Kaur, 326A Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. Appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2016-17 in Appeal no. 5/10540/2018-19 Written submissions in support of the grounds taken up in appeal are given below point wise: 1. The first ground of appeal is that the order u/s 153A/ 143(3) is bad in law.The second ground of appeal is that the learned assessing officer has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A. Since both the grounds are interconnected, consolidated submissions for the same are being made. The facts of the case are that the residential premise where the assessee was residing was searched on 8/9/2016. The return of income for the above mentioned assessment year had been originally

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 6

filed on 13/7/2011. These two basic facts have been mentioned in the first para of the impugned assessment order also. After the search, a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which return was filed. Copy of the notice and the acknowledgment of having filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A are enclosed at page no. 1 86 2. The notice u/s 153A was initially objected to and a letter dated 1/5/2018 was filed with the assessing officer stating that the jurisdiction u/s 153A could be assumed for each specific year covered by search only if some incriminating document pertaining to that year was found during search. It was also submitted through letter that copy of the incriminating document should be provided before proceeding further. Copy of the letter dated 1/5/2018 is enclosed at page no. 3. In response thereto a letter dated 307-2018/ 1-8-2018 was received from the assessing officer wherein it was stated that incriminating documents were found at the time of search and that huge amount of jewellery in the joint lockers had been seized. It was also stated that notices u/s 153A are mandatorily to be issued for six years where the search and seizure operations have been conducted. Copy of the above referred reply is enclosed at page no. 4. It is pertinent to mention that no document which was allegedly incriminating was even referred to / identified in the reply dated 30-7-2018/ 1-8-2018. As far as reference tojewellers is concerned, it is submitted that this does not represent criminating document and in any case is to be dealt with in the year relevant to the financial year in which the search took .e. Assessment Year 2017-18. These observations did not justify up the assessments for all the assessment years starting from theassessment year 2011-12 under scrutiny. We would like to submit that issue of notice u/s 153A for the year under consideration was totally unjustified particularly when there was no incriminating document/ material as would also be evident from the assessment order also. In support of the above legal contention, attention is drawn to the following decisions: (a) CIT vs. Gurdinder Singh Bawa - 386 ITR 483 [Bombay High Court]: It was held that that since assessment was not pending at the time of search and no incriminating document had been found, the proceedings u/s 153A were without jurisdiction. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 5 86 6. (b) DCIT vs. Times Finvest& Commerce Ltd. - 45 CCH 324 [ITAT Chandigarh]: It was held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course search and the assessment proceedings have not been abated at the time of search, the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to make addition u/s 153A. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 7 to 9 [please see reverse of page no. 9]. (c) Pr. CIT vs. Lata Jain reported at 384 ITR 543 [Delhi High Court]: In the appeal filed by the revenue it was held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, assessment could not be framed u/s 153A. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 10 [please see page no. 10]. (d) Pr. CIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd [Calcutta High Court]: It was held that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction u/s 153A where the search and seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 11 [please see reverse of page no. 11

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 7

(e) Pr. CIT & Others vs. Meeta Gutgutia - 395 ITR 526 [Delhi High Court]: It was held that for the years for which no incriminating documents were found, the invocation of section 153A was without any legal basis. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 12 to 23 [please see para no. 72 at page no. 23]. (a) Moon Beverages Ltd. Vs. ACIT - 53 CCH 120 [ITAT Delhi]: It was held that in the absence of incriminating documents, the Id. CIT(A) had not justified in upholding the action of the assessing officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 24 to 30 [please see page no. 24]. (b) INTAS Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT reported at 44 CCH 490 [ITAT Ahmedabad]: It was held that in the absence of incriminating material, the proceedings u/s 153A were bad in law and accordingly quashed. Copy of the decision is enclose at page no. 31 to 35 [please see para no. 8 on the reverse of page no. 32] CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society - 397 ITR 344 [Supreme Court]: It was held by the Supreme Court that even where the seized documents indicating capitation fee received were not co-related with assessment years in question, the notice issued u/s 153C was rightly quashed. It is submitted that the ratio of this decision will be applicable to the notice issued u/s 153A also. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 36 to 39.

(i) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. &Ors reported at 397 ITR 82 (Delhi High Court): It was held that the statement of the director recorded u/s 132(4) did not constitute any incriminating material and the assumption of jurisdiction for assessment u/s 153A was not justified. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 40 to 47. The only addition made in the impugned order is with regard to gifts totaling Rs. 500,000 received from father Sh. Param Jeet Singh who is based abroad. The documents found from the residence at the time of search only show gifts received from abroad on two occasions in December 2015 and one gift received in April 2016. Copies of these seized documents are enclosed at page no. 48 to 51. Firstly, the documents do not pertain to the year under consideration and secondly there is nothing incriminating about these documents. These cannot be described as incriminating in any way and in view of the above submission, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A for the year under appeal was bad in law and the order deserves to be quashed on this score. Importantly, even if there are two judicial views on an issue, it is an accepted legal position that the one favoring the assessee should prevail. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CED vs. R. Kanakasabai reported at 89 ITR 251. Also, though the issues relating gifts received from father were discussed, there was no show cause notice for the proposed addition. Attention is also drawn to the Instruction no. 20 of 2015 dated 29/12/2015 issued by the CBDT wherein it has been clarified that the assessing officer shall issue an appropriate show-cause notice duly

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 8

indicating the reasons for the proposed additions /disallowances along with necessary evidences / reasons forming basis of the same. In the present case the assessing officer never confronted the proposed addition which amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. Asking for information on an issue does not amount to confronting the assessee with the proposed addition. This contention is supported by Instruction no. 20 of 2015 issued by CBDT as well as the decision of Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported at 127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed.

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 9

(d) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 573 (Delhi High Court): The action of the ITAT in deleting the addition u/s 2(22)(e) since it was not based on any incriminating document seized during the search was upheld. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 77 to 79. (f) Principal CIT vs. DharampalPremchand - 99 CCH 202 (Delhi High Court): It was held that there has to be incriminating material qua each year covered by search. There being no incriminating material, the additions made u/s 153A/ 143(3) were not justified. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 80 to 82. (g) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction - 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court): It was held that if in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating document is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 83 to 90.Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd reported at 380 ITR 571 (Delhi High Court): It was held that no incriminating material with regard to hare capital issued was found during the course of search and hence the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee for the year under appeal, the addition of Rs. 500,000 made by the assessing officer in respect of gifts received from her father Sh. Param Jeet Singh who was based abroad was bad in law and deserves to be deleted at your hands on this score itself. As far as the merits of the addition are concerned, it is submitted that an affidavit of the father of the assessee was submitted wherein he had confirmed giving gifts to her daughter during the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Copy of the affidavit as submitted during the assessment proceedings is enclosed at page no. 93. Thereafter the assessee was also asked to explain the credit worthiness of her father and a reply dated 20/12/2018 was submitted with the assessing officer a copy of which along with relevant documents is enclosed at page no. 94 to 145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please be admitted as an additional evidence under Rule 46A and considered while disposing off this appeal. A separate application under Rule 46A is also being filed in this regard. The gifts

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 10

which have been excluded from the affidavit being filed now do not pertain to the year under appeal and these will be explained in the assessment year 2014-15 to which these pertain. The total gifts thus received from abroad which could have been doubted for the seven years under appeal total Rs. 3,12,04,393.96 (Rs.3,98,45,396.96 - Rs. 86,41,000). In the reply dated 20/12/2018 it was explained that the father of the assessee had settled in Bahrain around 1960. He was manufacturing air conditioner components under the name of Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC. Copies of his audited annual accounts for the financial years ending 31/3/20114 to 31/3/2017 were filed and stand enclosed at page no. 95 to 138 above. It was further submitted that he also owned a huge residential house at 9A Jyoti Nagar, Jalandhar which measured about 6 kanals. He was also a joint owner of residential house no. 482R, Model Town, Jalandhar along with his two brothers. He further owed a huge residential house at P.O. Box No. 20458, Manama, Bahrain, a villa at Rifa View, Golf Course Road, Awali, Bahrain. He was also the owner of a villa at Emirates Road, Legend Colony, Dubai, Flat no. 3102, Tower 4, Ajman 1, Dubai and a Flat at Sports City, Emirates Road, Dubai. It is further submitted that he held 20 % of the equity shares of M/s Sterling Hoteliers 86 Investment Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar which was supported with a certificate issued by the company to this effect. The said certificate stands enclosed at page no. 139 above. He also held deposit in the above company which was repaid back by the company over a period of time. Copies of deposit accounts starting with assessment year 2011-12 were filed with the assessing officer and these stands enclosed at page no. 140 to 146 above. ”

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 11

Commissioner appeal the assessee had filed the detailed written submission and had also filed the documents in support of her claim.

Kindly refer to your office letter No. 564 dated 13.05.2019 addressed to the ACIT Central Circle-II, Jalandhar on the above noted subject. The requisite report on the written submissions by the assessee on merits of the additions made in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act in his case is submitted hereunder. 2. In para-1 of his written submissions, the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO contending that since no incriminating document was found or seized relating to the assessee or relating to that year; and therefore, order passed u/s 153A of the Act was bad in law. In this respect it is submitted that reply was already given to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, which have been discussed by her in her written submissions also that as per provisions of section 153 or all the sections in this scheme of search assessment, the Hon'ble Legislature consciously have not used the word 'incriminating’

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 12

in any of the section nor any part of section 153A of the Act suggests that there is any discretion with the AO to first ascertain the nature of seized documents, record satisfaction about incriminating nature of the document and then decide to issue notice u/s 153A. Rather, the situation is totally reverse as in place of the old provisions of making assessments u/s 147 of the Act, where the AO has to record reasons to believe, even in search cases, the Hon'ble Legislature have consciously introduced first the scheme of block assessment u/s 158BC of the Act and then u/s 153A of the Act without recording any satisfaction and without putting in any condition of availability of seized documents not to talk of incriminating documents. These provisions have not been struck off the provision of issuance of notice for six assessment years or held the same as null and void by any superior court though they may have given different opinions based upon facts of individual cases. Even otherwise, without verifying contents of document, which may be lengthy process including confronting the same to the assessee and obtaining his version of explanation, in my humble view it cannot be decided as to whether a document is incriminating or not. Therefore, it is submitted that the AO was legally correct in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A for this assessment year as the same falls within the period of six assessment years proceeding the year in which the search was conducted at the residence of the assessee. Therefore, it is submitted that this submission of the assessee may kindly be rejected. 3.1 In respect of addition made in the assessment in respect of alleged gifts received by the assessee from her father Sh. Paramjit Singh, who is based in Bahrain, it is submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on the plea that condition of creditworthiness of the donor could not be proved by the assessee. The assessee's second and third ground of appeal/argument before your good self is that this addition was not based upon incriminating documents. In this respect, it is submitted that during the course of search at the residence of assessee, a number of documents in the shape of loose papers were

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 13

seized, among these documents were papers relating to payments received by the assessee from M/s Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, UAE along with some handwritten jottings on the reverse of one page, placed at page nos.17 to 20 of Annexure A-1 of the seized documents (copies enclosed for your kind reference). Thus, it is incorrect on the part of the assessee to claim that no document relating to payments received by her from foreign country, was seized from her. These documents required prima facie verification, which when done by the AO, lead to making additions on account of lack of creditworthiness of sender of the money. 3.2 In respect of assessee's submissions on merit, she had filed copy of an affidavit from her father as an additional evidence to the effect that a part of the gifts in the financial year 2013-14 were given out of his Indian Bank Account. Verifications made in respect of the said bank account revealed that the stated amount mentioned in the fresh affidavit of the assessee's father Sh. Paramjit Singh was given to the assessee out of his deposit accounts with M/s Sterling Hotels and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar and that the said amounts were lying in his deposit accounts for the period prior to 01.04.2011. In view of these verifications made, contents of affidavits and claims of Sh. Paramjit Singh appear to be true. Therefore, this part of the issue may kindly be decided accordingly. 3.3 The assessee has further enclosed a number of documents consisting of annual accounts of M/s Arabian Source Manufacturing LLC, attorney given by Sh. Bikramjit Singh and Sh. Davinder Singh and investment in immovable properties made by Sh. Paramjit Singh in Bahrain/UAE. In respect of the claim that 51 % share of the local Partner Mr. Sheikh Saud Bin Abdulah Rashid Al Nauaimi in the business, was only on paper and that the donor was the absolute owner, it is submitted that the assessee's claim is also on paper only and not a real one as the supporting document at page nos 226 to 227A of the documents filed, are only power of attorney given by one partner to the other partner for smooth conduct of business; that it nowhere certifies or confirms that the

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 14

assessee was eligible for owning whole of the profit or was pocketing the same. The assessee's claim is based on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and

3.1 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 & 2 relate to assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A bythe Assessing Officer and passing the order u/s 153A/143(3). The AO has mentioned that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was undertaken at the residential/business premises of the assessee on 08.09.2016 and notice u/s 153A was issued and served upon the assessee and the assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 153A on 12.09.2018. The AO has further mentioned that notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The objection raised by the assessee on re-opening of assessment u/s 153A of the IT Act,1961 vide letter dated 01.05.2018 has also been settled by speaking order dated 30 July/01 August 2018 passed by the AO which is also mentioned in the assessment order.

The facts of the case, basis of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and passing of assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has submitted that jurisdiction u/s 153A could be assumed only if incriminating documents are found during the search. It is also mentioned that the AO has disposed-off the objections filed stating that the incriminating documents were found at the time of search and the jewellery in the joint locker was seized. The AR has argued that the jewellery does not represent incriminating documents and has to be dealt in the year 'in which the search took place. As per the AR, no incriminating documents relating to the year under consideration was found and relied upon the certain case laws. It is submitted that the addition was made on account of gifts received from the father. It is also mentioned that no show-cause notice was issued before the proposed addition which as per the AR, amounts to violation of princ iple of natural justice. In the remand report submitted during the appellate proceedings, the AO has mentioned that during the course of search at the residence of the assessee, a number of documents in the shape of loose papers were seized relating to payments received by the assessee from UAE along with hand written jotting on reverse of one page placed at pages number '17 to 20 of Annexure A-1' of the seized documents and enclosed the copy of the same. It is also mentioned that reply to the objections raised by the assessee against reopening has already been given during the

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 15

course of assessment proceedings and this aspect has been discussed in the submission filed by the AR. The AO has mentioned that under the New Scheme, if search u/s 132 is initiated then the AO has to issue notice u/s 153A without recording any satisfaction and without putting in any condition of availability of seized/incriminating document. It is also mentioned that without verifying the contents of the document which may be a lengthy process including confronting the same to the assessee and obtaining his version or explanation, it cannot be decided whether the document is incriminating or not. There is merit found in the above arguments of the AO. As held by various judicial pronouncements once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AO as a fresh exercise. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment u/s 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 16

original assessment. The AO has duly mentioned the material found during the search which is being used for making the addition in this case. Ha d there been no search these amounts could not have been brought to tax. In view of the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order and in the remand report submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, the arguments of the AR on this issue are not found acceptable. Therefore, the AO was right in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after a search u/s 132 was carried out in this case and the order passed u/s 153A/143(3) cannot be said to be bad in law. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed”

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 17

Jatinder Singh 3 Handwriting note of Jatinder Singh h/o Amrita 9.9.2016 Walia Sahib sent to Dolly money in December 2016. There are partial receipts for those keep in record and take full receipts whenever received it was about 50 lac given back to PKF for loan against home 4 Payment instruction acknowledgment issued by 23.12.2015 Rs 9,00,000/- ADCB from the account titled Arabian Source MANUF LLC in favour of Amrita w/o Jatinder Pal Singh

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 18

return of income filed by the assessee prior to such of the premises of the assessee. No new document was found which shows that there was dealt on the part of the assessee to suppress the due taxation to the Department. By any standard these documents can not be said to be incriminating in the nature . Our view is fortified by the decision in the case of Lata Jain reported at 384 ITR 543 CIT & Others vs. Meeta Gutgutia - 395 ITR 526 [Delhi High Court] . CIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. &Ors reported at 397 ITR 82 (Delhi High Court): CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): IPrincipal CIT vs. DharampalPremchand - 99 CCH 202 (Delhi High ), which were relied upon the assessee, during the proceedins before us as well as before CIT(A). In fact the CIT appeal in his order ( para 10 supra ) had also submitted that no addition can be made for the years, which were unabated/ completed assessment , in the absence of incriminating material. Admittedly there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and further the CIT DR had failed to point out any incriminating material found during the course of hearing before us. Hence additions can be made by the revenue in the hands of assessee.

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 19

document found during the course of search pertaining to the year under consideration. In fact all the documents pertained to AY 2017-18, none was pertaining to the years under consideration .On account of the above we find merits in the appeals of the assessee and hence the appeals of the assessee are required to be allowed on this ground alone. We allow all the appeals of the assessee.

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 20

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 21

daughter by the father unless a contrary evidence is brought on record to suggest that the money of the assessee was brought back through the root of the gift from father. The revenue had failed to demonstrate that the assessee was having any other business or occupation or profession. In the absence of any cogent evidence brought on record by the revenue , we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the assessee deserves to be accepted. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee was able to prove identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and hence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee.

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

No separate order has been passed by the bench on the Stay application as the appeals of the assessee been allowed. The assessing officer was directed to give effect to the order passed by us on merit.

Pronounced on 20thJuly 2021 in accordance with rule 34 of the Income Tax Rules.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 22

By order

Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal