Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its Income Tax Return, which was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, a search operation was conducted, leading to a notice under Section 153A and an assessment where additions were made under Sections 68 and 69C for alleged unexplained cash credit and expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in *PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.* as no incriminating material was found during the search. The revenue has appealed this decision.
Held
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that in the case of unabated assessments under Section 153A, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The seized document BGHO/9 was considered part of regular accounts and not incriminating. Since no incriminating material was found related to the additions, and following the *Abhisar Buildwell* precedent, the disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessment years are sustainable in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in *PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.*
Sections Cited
250, 139(1), 143(1), 153A, 143(3), 68, 69C, 132(4), 132, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order : October 27, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: All the captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and relate to the same search operation, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are
ITA Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd being disposed of by this consolidated order. is taken as lead case for narration of facts. facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Return of Income u/s 139(1) for the A.Y. 2010-11 disclosing total income of Rs.2,167/- on 17.09.2010. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the office premises of the assessee at 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Shyamkunj, Flat No 6D, Ps Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, WB 700071 on 04.02.2020 and subsequent dates and also at 2, Iswar Chatterjee Road, Sodepur. Kolkata -700110 WB on 04.02.2020. Again, a survey operation was conducted at the premise of the assessee at 8/C, Maharshi Debendra Road 6th floor Kolkata-700007 on 04.02.2020. Consequently, notice u/s 153A was issued on 11.02.2021 and assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.09.2021 on a total income of Rs.5,37,56,220/- after making following additions: 1. Addition u/s 68 of the Act Rs. 5,36,20,000/- 2. Addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs. 1,34,050/-
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 459 ITR 212 dated 24.04.2023 as there was no incriminating material unearthed during the search.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the revenue filed the present appeal before us by taking following grounds of appeal: , 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd 5.1 The ld. DR in the course of argument has only submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the addition on the basis of document marked as BGHO/9 seized during the course of search and statement of the accommodation entry operator during the search operation and mainly relied on the other documents in the course of search. , 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd
6. Contrary to that, the ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that such documents which have been referred by the revenue are nothing but it is a tally of accounting mentioned in the record. The ld. counsel placed before us the document seized being Bundle no.BGHO/9 and submits that it is part of tally accounts record maintained by the assessee in the regular books of account and that cannot be treated as an incriminating material. The ld. AR further submits that there is no denying of this fact that the assessment u/s 153A of the Act falls in an unabated assessment year and there is no incriminating document was found and seized during the search proceedings. The ld. counsel submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not required any interference keeping in view the judgment passed by the passed in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
7. Upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that the assessee being a company, filed its return of income on 17.09.2010 and last date of issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was 30.09.2011, the date of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act was on 04.02.2020 and notice u/s 153A was issued on 11.02.2021 and assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act on 27.09.2021. On examination of the above facts, it is clear that on the date of search, no assessment or reassessment relating to this assessment year was pending on the date of search. In the assessment year passed u/s 153A, additions were made for alleged transaction of the accommodation entry via sale of shares, payment of commission for the same. Going over the Assessing Officer, we find that the Assessing Officer did not refer any material which is incriminating in nature in respect of these additions. On the other hand, we find that the alleged transactions on sale of shares/receipt of the sale proceeds of 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd Rs.5,36,20,000/- was reflected in the regular books. It is settled law that regular books of account cannot be considered as incriminating material. It is pertinent to mention here that the additions were made for sale proceeds from shares sold by the assessee which were carried out in the ordinary course of business which were again reflected in the audited books of account. The ld. AR submits that the document seized bearing no.BGHO/9 during the search operation and the relevant parties which are concerned to this assessee are mentioned in pages 51 to 58. Seeing the above documents seized, we find that this is a part of tally accounts and records were mentioned in the regular books of account of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. stated supra has clearly been laid down that in the case of unabated assessment, the scope of addition in an assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act is available only if there is incriminating material found in the course of search and in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make such addition. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed details in respect of the said amount of Rs.5,36,20,000/- received from various private companies. It is further pertinent to mention here that the statement of one Shri N. K. Jain was recorded and no opportunity has been given to the assessee to cross-examine the same qua the statement of third party. We have gone through the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has clearly been held that on perusal of the Panchanama(s) as well as assessment order, the document as inventorised as BGHO/1 to 15, BGHO/HD/1 to 5 and BGHO/PO/01 were seized but in the order of the assessment, there is no mention of this documents that how these are incriminating in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has held in his order that no incriminating documents have been found during search against the assessee relevant to this particular assessment year. In the current case, additions have 5
ITA Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd been made on the basis of post search enquiry, assessment proceedings and statement of Shri N. K. Jain. Hence, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra), that the disallowances/additions made are not sustainable. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, filed by the revenue is dismissed. to 1311/Kol/2025 - Since the facts and issues involved in all the appeals are identical and arise from the same search action, and no incriminating materials have been found as discussed above, therefore, our findings/directions given above in will mutatis mutandis apply to ITA Nos.1307 to 1311/Kol/2025 also. Hence, ITA Nos.1307 to 1311/Kol/2025 are dismissed.
In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Kolkata, the 27th October , 2025.