ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE.1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.AARYAVART INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 38/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 February 2024AY 2014-1511 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that as a result of the search at third-party premises, documents pertaining to the assessee were found only for the financial year 2016-17. For the years under dispute, no documents were found on the searched premises. The Tribunal relied on the settled position of law, citing the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023), which held that in respect of completed/unabated assessment years, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also addressed the nexus issue, noting that while there were business transactions between the assessee and the searched parties, it could not be inferred that there was a nexus between them, especially in the absence of incriminating documents found on the searched premises. Since the assessment framed by the AO was quashed on technical grounds, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merit were rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed six appeals challenging the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17. These appeals arose from proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation under Section 132 on February 6, 2017, at the premises of third parties. While a survey under Section 133A was also conducted at the assessee's premises on the same date, the Revenue's case was that additions were made based on incriminating material found during the search of other persons. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions totaling Rs. 8,18,91,149/- based on documents seized during the survey at the assessee's premises, not from the searched third parties. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding they were beyond the scope of Section 153C as no incriminating material was found from the searched persons pertaining to the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in proceedings under Section 153C, additions can be made based on incriminating material found during a search under Section 132, even if such material does not pertain to the assessee whose premises were searched, and if the CIT(A) erred in limiting additions to such material. 2. Whether Section 153C requires the issuance of a notice for each assessment year within six years and allows for assessment or reassessment of total income for those years, and if the CIT(A)'s interpretation would render the scheme of assessment or reassessment ineffective in the absence of seized incriminating material. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that while Section 158BB (Chapter XIV-B) required evidence found as a result of search, Section 153A and 153B do not have such a stipulation, and that Chapter XIV-B is not applicable for searches initiated after May 31, 2003. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering that assessments unrelated to search and seizure might arise in the six assessment years, and if the CIT(A)'s interpretation would prevent the assessment of such income under Section 153A/153C, as no other parallel proceedings could be initiated. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions totaling Rs. 8,12,346/- (unexplained entries), Rs. 4,20,23,463/- (unexplained cash deposit), Rs. 88,00,000/- (from Benefit Information Ltd.), Rs. 1,90,00,000/- (admission of profit from Anubhuti Homes), and Rs. 1,12,38,000/- (unexplained source for purchase of immovable properties) as being beyond the scope of Section 153C read with Section 153A. Assessee's Contention: The additions made by the AO were based on documents recovered during the survey proceedings at the assessee's premises. There was no connection between the assessee and the searched persons. The survey was not conducted in pursuance of any recovery from the searched parties. Revenue's Contention: The CIT(A) erred in holding that additions under Section 153C must be confined to incriminating material found during the search under Section 132, as there is no such stipulation in Section 153C. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 153C requires assessment for six years and that the scheme would be rendered ineffective if no additions are allowed without seized incriminating material. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering that assessments unrelated to search could arise and that the AO had taken cognizance of seized material and statements for making additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 133A,Section 153A,Section 158BB,Section 132A,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

आदेश/ORDER

PER BENCH

These six appeals filed by the Revenue are against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad, in the proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act vide orders dated 04/12/2019 & 18-03-2021 passed for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17.

2 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

2.

First, we take up IT(SS)A No. 35/Ahd/2020 for the AY 2011-12, an appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s 153C has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153C of the Act.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec 153C requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period u/s 158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A and sec. 153BI specifically states that the provisions of Chapter-XIV-B, under which sec. 158BB falls, would not be applied where a search was initiated u/s. 132 after 31/5/2003.

4.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s. 132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the ld. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A/153C proceedings, while no other parallel proceedings to assess such other income can be initiated, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that addition on account of unexplained entries of Rs. 8,12,346/-, addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs 4,20,23,463/-, addition on account of amount received from Benefit Information Ltd. of Rs.88,00,000/-, addition on account of admission of profit of the Anubhuti Homes of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- and addition on account of unexplained source for purchase of immovable properties of Rs.1,12,38,000/- are beyond the scope of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act and thus deleting the said additions/disallowances.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no incriminating documents were found relating to additions made overlooking the facts that the AO has taken into cognizance of seized material/statements of various persons recoded during search proceedings for making additions.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the material facts and evidences brought on record by the AO for making

3 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

addition on account of unexplained entries of Rs. 8,12,348/-, addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 4,20,23,463/, addition on account of amount received from Benefit Information Ltd. of Rs. 83,00,000/-, addition on account of admission of profit of the Anubhuti Homes of Rs. 1,90,00,000 and addition on account of unexplained source for purchase of immovable properties of Rs. 1,12,38,000/- 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.”

3.

The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the additions can be made based on incriminating materials found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act in the proceedings-initiated u/s 153C of the Act.

4.

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of building and construction materials. The brief facts of the case are that there was a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act dated 6th Feb 2017 in the case of following persons:

Name of the persons: (i) Mahendra Shantilal Patel (ii) Bharat Pranlal Popat (iii) Benefit Tradelink Ltd. (iv) Allegiance Realty Pvt. Ltd.

As a result of the search, there was no document of incriminating nature found from the premises of the search party pertaining/belonging to the assessee except one MS Excel File named Book12.xlsx impounded from the premises of Benefit Trade Limited, containing transactions of April and May 2016 relevant to the financial year 2016-17 corresponding to assessment year 2017-18. The transactions recorded in the impounded document were also extracted in the

4 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the assessee which is placed on record.

4.1 In addition to the above, the premise of the assessee was also subject to survey operation u/s 133A of the Act 6th Feb 2017. As a result of survey operation, many documents were seized which were used for the purpose of making following additions:

Particulars Amount

(i) Unexplained entries Rs. 8,12,346/- (ii) Unexplained cash deposits Rs. 4,20,23,463/- (iii) Accommodation entries from Benefit Information Ltd. Rs. 88,00,000/-

(iv) Admission of profit from Anubhuti Rs. 1,90,00,000/-

(v) Interest received u/s. 244A of the Act Rs. 17,340/- (vi) Unexplained sources for the purchase of property Rs. 1,12,38,000/-

4.2 It is pertinent to note that the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee on account of the search carried out at the premises of different persons listed above. But there was no addition made in the hands of the assessee based on any document of an incriminating nature found on the premises of the search person for the year in dispute. Thus, on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

5 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

“The Third & Fourth Grounds of Appeal are regarding framing of the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act in case of searched assessee, which pertains to the assessment year 2011-12 and making the various additions/disallowances without reference to the seized material. Since both the grounds of appeal are inter-related and overlapping, the same are taken together From the assessment order, it is seen that the AO has made various additions totaling to Rs 8,18,91,149/- Each and every additions/disallowances made by the AO has been carefully gone through and it is found that none of the additions/disallowances has any reference/link with the seized material i.e. Excel Sheet named "Bock12.xisx found from the premises of the searched assessees i.e. Beneft Tradelinks Ltd (AADCB3468K) Elegance Realty Pvt. Ltd. (AACCE2985M) & Bharat Pranlal Popat (ADOPPE046M) collectively known as "Benefit Group".

Section 153C(1) of the Act reads as under:

Assessment of income of any other person:

153C(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148 section 143, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-

(a) any money, bullion jewelery or other valuable article or thing, seized of requisitioned, belongs to or

(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertan to or any information contained therein, relates to

a person other than the person referred to in section 153A then the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person) and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue nonce and assesssee reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub section (1) of section 153A:”

Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 1324 in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving of books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:

Provided further....

In view of the above provisions of section 153C of the Act, reference to date of search in case of the appellant company is the date of receiving the seized material MS Excel sheet named "Bock 12.xlsx from the AO of the searched assessee. Since the AD has recorded the satisfaction note dated 11/09/2018, it is safely presumed that the seized material i.e. excel file "Book 12.xlsx must have been received by him on or before 11/09/2018. So, as on the date 11/09/2018, the proceedings for AY 2011-12 were not pending and therefore were not abated. Accordingly, the AO has to pass the order u/s. 153C of the Act as per

6 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

the earlier assessment framed either u/s. 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act as the case may be since mere is no incriminating seized material pertaining to the AY 2011-12 which has been found from the premises of the searched assessee in case of the appellant the last assessment framed is us 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28/11/2016, the copy of which has been placed in the paper book in support of its legal contention the appellant has relied upon several legal decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (397 ITR 0344) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT VS Singa Technical Education Society has held that the seized incriminating maternal have to pertain to the assessment year in question and have co- relation document-wise with the assessment year. The requirement u/s 153C is essential and becomes a jurisdictional fact. It is an essential condition precedent that any money bullion of jewellery or other valuable articles of thing of books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in S. 153A. The appellant has also relied upon the decision of one Gujarat High Court in case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (81 Taxmann.com 292) and contended that the ratio laid down in the said decision is equally applicable to the cases covered u/s. 153C of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts and the legal position as per the decisions relied, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the appellant company and according these grounds of appeal are allowed. Since none of the actions/disallowances made by the A.O. in the assessment order under appeal are based on the seized material found during the course of search in case of the searched assessee and since in the case of the searched assessee and since the case for the AY 2011-12 is not abated, all the additions/ disallowances made by the AO are deleted.”

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us.

The ld. D.R. before us filed the written submission vide letter dated 19th 6. January 2024 which is reproduced as under: “2. The hearing of the case was completed on 11.01.2024, subject to the direction that the CIT-DR would provide in writing in support of his claim that the Survey action u/s. 133A of the Act in the Case of the Assessee was carried out on 06.02.2017 along with the search actions in the cases of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel, Beneft Group, Shri Bharat Popat and Shri Vishal Dilipkumar Pandaya on 06.02.2017 as a Group Search action and the cases are intimately connected.

3.

As per the direction, following facts are brought to the notice of Hon'ble Court which establishes that the Assessee is having an intimate nexus with Shri Mahendra Shantalal Patel, M/s Benefit Group Shri Bharat Popat and Vishal Dipkumar Pandya in whose case search action u/s 132 was initiated on 06.02.2017 & 07/02/2017.

3.1 On 06/02/2017, searches were carried out in the case of (1) Shri Shri Mahendra Shamal Patel (MSP in short) (2) Benefit Group (headed by Shri Bharat Popat) and (3) Shri Vishal Dipakkumar Pandya Prop of SVP Corporation. Simultaneously Survey action was also carried out at the place of M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Assessee on 06/02/2017 & 07/02/2017.

7 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

3.2 Shri Mahendra Shantial Patel had admitted having provided accommodtion entries against commission, as started in the recorded statement under section 132(4) Ref Page No 21-24 of Assessment Order for AY 2017-18) & Affidavit (Page No 25-31 of the Assessment Order for AY 2017-18)

3.3 In Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Shri Mehendr Shantilal Patel, he admits issuing bogus accommodation bills in the names of various associate concerns of Shin Bharat Popet. Due to heath concerns and to avoid the risk of carrying cash, he provided signed cheques to Bharat Popat, instructing him to withdraw cash after depositing the account payee cheques. This arrangement involved Shri Bharat Popat or his staff handling the cash withdrawal process (Ref Para No. 6. Page No. 28 of the Assessment Order AY 2017-18) 3.4 During the search conducted in the case of Benefit Group was discovered that Shri Bharat Popat controls multiple concerns under the names of various individuals including SVP Corporation Prop Shri Vishal Dipkumar Pandya (One of the Key Persons of Search) (Screen Short of Tally with heading “SVP Corporation” Page No. 33 of the Assessment Order for AY 2017-18, third concern from below)

3.5 Shri Vishal Dilipkumar Pandya filed an affidavit (Ref: Page No. 42 of the Assessment Order AY 2017-18). In which he stated that there are Six (6) accounts in his name which were operated and controlled by Shri Bharat Popat. He further stated that he was unaware of the business transactions being carried out by Shri Bharat Popat and suspects improper transactions in the Bank Accounts controlled by Shri Bharat Popat.

3.6 Shri Vishal Dipkumar Pandya also reiterated the above facts in his statement recorded u/s 131(1A) Dated 06.02.2017 at the his business premises. In reply to Q No. 15, he stated inter alla that that the account numbers mentioned in sl. Nos. 3.4 and 5 of the affidavit (Ref: Page No 42 of the Assessment Order AY 2017-18) are operated and controlled by Shri Bharat Popat. He further stated that Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and M/s Fairdeal Sales Corporation Ltd and Shreeji Marketing are all well connected cases with Shri Bharat Popat (a copy of the statement is enclosed).

3.7 During the search at Benefit House, led by Shri Bharat Popat two significant files "Book 12.xls" and "Cheque Book Data Base were found in seized digital data. The transactions figuring in "Book 12. xls" (Page No 48-49 of the Assessment Order AY 2017-18) matched substantially with the Ledger Account of SVP Corporation for FY 2016-17 placed at Page No 74 of Paper Bock-1 for AY 2017-18 submitted by the id. AR in the form of a Paper Book with regard to M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the Assessee. From the submission of the assessee in paper book No 1 for AY 2016-2017 (Page No 90,91,93,94), the matter gets further crystalsed that the transaction figuring in “Book12.xls” substantially matches with books of accounts of the assessee Ms. Aaryavart infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The said facts have also been covered in Satisfaction Note for initiation of Assessment Proceedings u/s. 153C of the IT Act (Page No. 57-59 Paper Book-1 for A.Y 2016-17)

3.8 SVP Corporation is also listed under "Advance given to Creditors in the Audit Report for FY 2015-16 (Page No. 29-30 of Paper Book-1 for A.Y 2016-17) The file namely “Book12.xls” indicates a clear direction of cash against RTGS in the

8 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

bank account of SVP Corporation controlled by Shri Bharat Popat. This suggests that cash was provided by Deep Gadhecha, Director of M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the Assessee Company, to Shri Bharat Popat for obtaining accommodation entries (Reference Master Data downloaded from MCA Portal). 3.9 The bank details mentioned in the MS Excel file "Cheque Book Data Base (Page No 38-39 of Assessment Order for AY 2017-18) also matched with the affidavit provided by Shri Vishal Dipakumar Pandya (Page No. 42 of Assessment Order for AY 2017-18)

4 From the foregoing paragraphs it is amply clear that Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel (MSP) directly connected with Benefit group led by Shri Bharat Popat, who is connected with Vishal Dilipkumar Pandya, Prop of Ms. SVP Corporation. It is also very clear from the aforesaid paragraphs that all the accommodation entries provided to M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd thoughts SVP Corporation which is controlled and operated by Shri Bharat Popat. Therefore it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the above groups are intimately connected with each other. Therefore, the incriminating materials unearthed in course of survey operation u/s 133A from M/s. Aayavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd cannot be construed to be third party information and therefore distinguishable from the ratios of the case laws submitted by the ld. A.R.”

7.

On the other hand, the ld. A.R. before us filed the written submissions and the case laws compilation which are available on record. The written submissions run from pages 1 to 7 wherein it was contended by the ld. AR that in absence of any incriminating documents found during the search at the premises of the assessee, no addition is warranted. The ld. AR further contended that whatever additions have been made by the Assessing Officer are based on the documents recovered during survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee. The ld. AR also filed written submission dated 1-2-2024 in pursuance to the direction of the Bench wherein it was pointed out that there was no connection between the assessee and the searched person.

7.1 Both the ld. DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them.

8.

We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the satisfaction note recorded by the

9 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

AO of the assessee, we note that as a result of search at the premises of third parties, the documents pertaining to the assessee were found for the financial year 2016-17. As such, there was no document found on the premises of searched person for the year under dispute. It is settled position of law as propounded by various Hon’ble High Courts including the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd reported in 387 ITR 529 that unabated/completed assessment years cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee. This legal preposition is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgement dated 24- 04-2023 holding that in respect of completed assessments/ unabated assessments, no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act in the batch of cases namely PCIT, Central-3 -Vs- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. reported [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) by observing as follows:

“Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Conditions precedent) - Whether object of section 153A is to bring under tax undisclosed income which is found during course of search or pursuant to search or requisition; therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found on basis of incriminating material, Assessing Officer would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment- Held, yes - Whether in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A and that all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated - Held, yes - Whether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A - Held, yes - Whether, however, completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147/148 subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged/mentioned under section 147/148 and those powers are saved - Held, yes

10 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

8.1 Moving further, at the time of hearing, a question was posed to the ld. counsel of the assessee whether there was any nexus between the assessee and the searched parties. The ld. AR contended that there is no nexus between the assessee and the searched person and likewise the search and survey carried out at the premises of the respective parties were independent of each other. As such, the survey was not conducted in pursuance of any recovery of any document from the premises of the search parties. In this regard, we note that there were certain transactions between the assessee and the searched parties which reflected the business transactions. Therefore, we are of the view that it cannot be inferred based on the business transactions that there was nexus between the assessee and the searched persons who belongs to the same group. Accordingly, we are of the view that in the absence of any incriminating document found on the searched premises, there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee in the proceedings carried out u/s 153C of the Act. In view of the above and after considering the facts in total as well as considering the above cited cases, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) requiring any interfering of the ITAT. Accordingly, we uphold the same.

8.2 As we have quashed the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on technical grounds, we do not find any reason to adjudicate the issue raised by the Revenue on merit. Hence, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merit become infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as infructuous.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.

Coming to IT(SS)A Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021 for the AYs 2012-13 to 2016-07

11 I.T(SS).A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & IT(SS)A 69/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

10.

Coming to other appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021 are identical to the ITA No. 35/Ahd/2020, so the findings of IT(SS)A No. 35/Ahd/2020 are applicable to them and therefore, all the appeals are hereby dismissed.

11.

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07-02-2024

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCCOUNTNAT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 07/02/2024 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →