ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. MUKESH KUMAR CHAURASIA, GUWAHATI

ITA 82/GTY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 September 2026AY 2017-1825 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the AO for two previous financial years, FY 2014-15 and 2015-16, had also been allowed by the CIT(A), and the Revenue had not brought any adverse material against this. Considering the totality of the facts, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition made by the AO for the impugned assessment year. The Tribunal's reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the CIT(A) had already deleted additions for prior years without any challenge from the Revenue, and by extension, applied a similar approach to the current year. The operative direction is the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the detailed grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the validity of the search and limitation were implicitly set aside by the deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (ACIT) is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The CIT(A) had deleted an addition of Rs. 6,74,98,864/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3)/153A. The AO's addition was based on incriminating material (RKC-01 to RKC-20) seized during a search and seizure operation conducted on 19.04.2016 from the assessee's premises. The CIT(A) held that the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 was barred by limitation, finding the search conducted on 19.04.2016 to be a mere formality and not a valid continuation of an earlier search concluded on 30.03.2016. The assessee had filed a return of income on 14.12.2017 in response to a notice issued on 20.11.2017. During the search, the assessee had made a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 5 crore for FY 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,74,98,864/- made by the AO under Section 143(3)/153A, thereby restoring the AO's order. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that the search conducted on 19.04.2016 was a mere formality and that the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 was barred by limitation, despite admitting that incriminating material was seized on 19.04.2016. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in holding the search as a formality and the assessment as barred by limitation). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding the search conducted on 19.04.2016 as invalid and illegal. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in holding the search as invalid and illegal). 4. Whether the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in holding the search conducted on 19.04.2016 as invalid and illegal. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that no search took place on 19.04.2016, by concluding the warrant of authorization was exhausted on 30.03.2016 and a fresh warrant was required, without considering the search as a continuation of an earlier search concluded with a prohibitory order under Section 132(3). (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in holding no search took place and in not considering the continuation of the earlier search). 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding the orders of the AO as barred by limitation, without appreciating the assessee's compliance with notices under Sections 153A, 143(2), 142(1) after 31.12.2017. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in holding orders as barred by limitation despite assessee's compliance). 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds on technical and legal issues without referring back to the AO for comments, violating Rule 46A. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in admitting additional grounds without referring to AO). 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that additions were not based on incriminating seized material, when the AO's order clearly shows additions were based on material RKC-01 to RKC-20 seized during the search. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred in holding additions not based on seized material). 9. Whether the CIT(A) deleted the addition only on legal issues and not on merits, thus the AO's order should be restored. (Assessee's contention not recorded. Revenue's contention: CIT(A) deleted only on legal issues).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 132(1),Section 132(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 131(1),Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Bhati, FCA
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], dated 11.12.2019 on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.6,74,98,864/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/ 153A and hence the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.

2.

That the Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law after adm

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →