SURESH CHAND BANSAL,JIND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE 16, DELHI

Delay of 430 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal, is condoned in larger interest of justice and Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the lower authorities have made capital gains addition of Rs.7.75 lakhs in assessee’s hands in assessment order dated 07.06.2021 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute the clinching fact emerging from the case file that the impugned assessment year 2013-14 is an “unabated” one since the departmental authorities had carried out section 132 search action in assessee’s case on 03.05.2018 leading to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. And that hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) has settled the law that such an addition involving an “unabated” assessment has to be based on the seized/incriminating material only. 3 | P a g e

From a perusal of the assessment discussion, we find that there is not even an iota of evidence indicating that the learned Assessing Officer has made the addition in assessee’s hands based on such an incriminating material. We thus find it a fit case to delete the impugned capital gains of Rs.7.75 lakhs in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd July, 2025 (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER