SHIMLA HILLS CONSTRUCTION,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken three substantial grounds of appeal wherein it has pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has A.Y.2013-14 2

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,40,781/-,
Rs.3,99,178/- and Rs.15,94,975/-.
2.1. The ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal wherein he has pleaded that assessment order has been passed u/s 153A but ld. AO has not referred any incriminating material in the assessment order, therefore, additions are not sustainable in view of latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132(1) was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 19.11.2018. In order to give logical end to the proceedings, ld. AO has issued notice u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee has filed its return of income on 08.02.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,40,970/- which is equivalent to the amount declared by it in the return u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax
Act filed on 27.09.2013. The ld. AO has made three additions to the total income of the assessee. These additions are ; a)
According to the AO, assessee had contract receipts from M/s Sandalwood Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y.2013-14
3

In such contract receipts, there is a discrepancy between the receipts recognized by the assessee vis-à-vis by the payer. Hence, he worked out such difference at Rs.9,40,781/- and made the addition.
b)
One of the partners of the assessee Shri Hari Om
Sharma retired from the partnership. He has 1/3r d share and his account was settled.
According to the AO, assessee has claimed that shuttering material amounting to Rs.8,05,021/- was transferred to the retiree partner whereas in the books of account, assets transferred are only of Rs.4,05,843/-. The difference has been added by the AO.
c)
There was expenditure of Rs.15,94,975/- with respect to sub-contractor charges. According to the AO, TDS was not deducted on such payments, hence, addition deserved to be made.
4. On due consideration of the above all three items, we are of the view that they are the items of regular assessment. None of the addition has been made on the A.Y.2013-14
4

strength of any incriminating material found during the course of search. The AO has visualized the return of income and its accounts as if he was passing a regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Such additions cannot be made to the total income of the assessee without the support of any incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) expired long back before the search has taken place at the premises of the assessee, hence this return attained finality and it could only be abated if any incriminating material was found during the course of search. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals).
5. In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 16.03.2026. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT

“Poonam”
A.Y.2013-14
5

आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

सहायक पंजीकार/