Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 arose from an order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search was conducted on 03.08.2016, leading to assessment proceedings. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for adjournment to obtain a status report. It observed that no additions were made based on the seized material in the assessment, and thus allowed the assessee's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be decided based on the seized material when no additions were made by the Assessing Officer. Rejection of adjournment request by the Revenue.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Mahagun (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-13, New Delhi-110095 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACTPG0839J Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s in case No. 28/10356/19-20, order dated 11.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Coming to the assessee’s instant appeal, we note at the outset that the learned departmental authorities had conducted the search in question in assessee’s case on 03.08.2016 leading Ritesh Kumar Gupta to initiation of Section 153A proceedings finally culminating in the Assessing Officer’s section 153A assessment framed on 30.12.2018 making the addition(s) in question. There could be hardly any dispute that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search wherein any additions has to be made in the assessee’s hands based on the specific seized material only as per PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).
Learned CIT-DR at this stage seeks to postpone the hearing in the instant assessee’s appeal on the ground that the necessary status report is yet to come from the field authorities.
We are of the considered view that given the fact that there is no addition made on the basis of the seized material, we reject the Revenue’s instant adjournment and allow this assessee’s appeal in very terms. Ordered accordingly.