Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders for assessment years 2012-13, 2009-10, and 2013-14. The appeals pertained to the disallowance/addition of the assessee's agricultural income exemption. The assessment for AY 2012-13 was an unabated assessment, and the search occurred on 14.03.2014.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals lacked merit. For the unabated assessment, the Revenue failed to produce any incriminating material to support the addition. For the abated assessment, the assessee had already provided all relevant details to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue provided sufficient incriminating material to justify the addition of agricultural income in an unabated assessment post-search, and whether the assessee had adequately provided details in an abated assessment.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 10(1)
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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s three appeals 6378 & 6382/Del/2018 for assessment years 2012-13, 2009-10 and 2013- 14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 31.07.2018 passed in cases no. 88/17-18/421/16-17; 95/17-18/419/16-17 and 89/17-18/422/16-17, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” appeal Assessing Officer’s action disallowing/adding the assessee’s claim of section 10(1) exemption of his agricultural income amounting to Rs.2.28 lakhs, in the course of scrutiny assessment framed on 27.12.2016 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, a perusal of the instant case file indicates that the departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 14.03.2014; and, therefore, the impugned assessment year 2012-13 involves an “unabated” assessment wherein any 2 | P a g e corresponding addition has to be made based on the seized material only in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Learned CIT(DR) could not pinpoint any such incriminating material pertaining to the impugned addition during the course of hearing before us. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground which is hereby rejected in the foregoing terms. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Same order to follow in the Revenue’s second appeal raising the very issues and involving “unabated” assessment. Rejected accordingly.