Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appeals were directed against a common order of the CIT(A) dated 22.04.2025.
Held
The tribunal decided to hear both appeals together due to similar facts and grounds. The assessee objected to the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A and challenged the assessment order on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the AO correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A and whether the addition of cash deposit as unexplained money was justified.
Sections Cited
250, 153A, 132, 44AD, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
1670/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee are directed against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 22.04.2025 for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Through the & 1670/Chny/2025 aforesaid appeals, the assessee has challenged the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Since facts of the cases and the grounds taken up in the appeals are similar except variation in the amount, these appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience the assessment year 2020-21 for adjudication.
The assessee objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in passing the assessment order dated 22.04.2025 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, and further assailed the said order on merits on the following grounds: - “1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of assessment, without adverting to the grounds and submissions made by the Appellant.
2. The CIT(A) failed to advert that there was no material seized or incriminating materials found during the search, unearthing any undisclosed income and therefore the Assessment had been wrongly completed u/s 153A of the Act 3. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the addition having not been made on the basis of any incriminating material, initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act itself is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that proviso to clause 153(1) states only in cases where assessment or reassessment is pending as on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 will only get abated. In the instance case, being no pending assessment on the date of search, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the relevant grounds.
5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact Appellant being a sub-contractor and having explained the cash deposit were made during the contract work he erred in upholding the addition of cash deposit of Rs.23,56,500/- as unexplained money.
6. The Appellant having declaring his income u/s 44AD of the Act, which statutory relieves the Appellant from maintaining books of accounts, adding