DCIT CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MCK PGE PROJECT LLP, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 59/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2024AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The primary reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had made a clear finding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions based on post-search inquiries and statements, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Additionally, the Ld. CIT(A) had observed that the assessment year 2014-15 fell beyond the six assessment years preceding the date of the search, which is the period within which the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to reopen under Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment had been wrongly reopened by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances, along with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), to be conclusive and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 29.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue's appeal was filed with a delay of 87 days, for which a condonation petition was submitted and allowed by the Tribunal. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on the Primarc Group on 05.01.2021, to which the assessee, MCK PGE Projects LLP, is a related entity. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 03.02.2022, and the assessee filed its return of income on 08.02.2022. The assessment year in question, 2014-15, was unabated on the date of the search.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make additions in an unabated assessment year based on post-search inquiries and statements, when the assessment year falls beyond the six preceding assessment years prior to the search, as per Section 153A of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as they were made without jurisdiction. This was based on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions based on post-search inquiries and statements, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that AY 2014-15 falls beyond the six assessment years preceding the search, which is the period for which the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to reopen under Section 153A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer or the validity of the additions made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Hearing: 18.12.2024Pronounced: 31.12.2024

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.12.2023 for the AY 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, we note that there is 87 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue for which the condonation petition has been moved by the Revenue, wherein it has been stated that in order to file the appeal, the file has to go through various stages in the hierarchy for obtaining approvals and hence, the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. Considering the contents of the condonation and the arguments of the

3.

At the outset, we note that the search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the Primarc Group on 05.01.2021, of which assessee is a related entity. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 03.02.2022. The assessee complied with the said notices while filing the return of income on 08.02.2022. The impugned assessment year is 2014-15, therefore, undisputedly, the assessment as not abated on the date of search or has attained finality. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make the addition in an unabated assessment year on the date of search only with a reference to the incriminating search material found and seized during the course of search. However, the addition was made on the basis of post search enquiry and statements recorded which were deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by recording a clear-cut finding that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC), the AO lacked jurisdiction to make addition and thus additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer were not sustainable as the same were without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) in Para no.3.4 (f), noted that the impugned assessment year i.e. AY 2014-15, falls beyond even the 6 assessment years preceding the date of search which the ld. Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to reopen u/s 153 of the Act and therefore, otherwise also the assessment has been wrongly reopened by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act. Considering these facts and circumstances and the findings of fact

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12. 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 31.12.2024 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →