Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2014-15. Following a search and seizure operation, the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash credit (Rs. 50,70,000/-), unexplained expenditure (Rs. 5,070/-), and disallowance under Section 14A (Rs. 60,000/-) in an assessment completed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., as no incriminating material was unearthed during the search.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It reiterated that additions cannot be made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A/143(3) without incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect of the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for filing appeals.
Key Issues
Whether additions made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A/143(3) are sustainable in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, and if the revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the CBDT monetary limit.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 14A, 68, 69C, 131, 132, 253, 143(1), 143(2), 132A, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-26, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 08.03.2022 for AY 2014-15.
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sunrise Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 2. On perusal of the registry it appears that the appeal filed by the department after a delay of 40 days, for this, the condonation petition has been filed by the department which is as follows:
The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee being a company filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. (-) 1,34,836/-. During the search and seizure operation a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and the assessment completed u/s 153A/143(3) after making following addition: i) unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 50,70,000/- iii) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 60,000/-
The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by holding that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), the addition made in preceding year u/s 153A are not sustainable,
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue has preferred an instant appeal.
The Ld. Sr. D.R has submitted that in the present case tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT but his case lies under the exceptional clause. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO ignoring the statement given on oath made u/s 131 of the Act as the statement given before the AO was reliable. The Ld. Counsel further submits that there is no definition of incriminating materials rather the incriminating can be in any form such as evident in nature of statement given on oath.
Contrary to that, the Ld. A.R submits that present case falls under the tax effect as tax effect in the present case is below is monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. On the merit it has been argued by the ld. A.R that the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court passed in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) as there was no incriminating material is unearthed during the search.
We have perused the memo of copy as well as order of Ld. CIT(A). It admits of no doubt that the appeal has been filed by the department in which monetary limit is below the prescribed limit i.e. tax effect is Rs. 15,68,197/-. We have gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) clearly discussed the case of the assessee and after that giving a finding which is as follows:
Looking the facts of the case, we also find that in the course of search, a search team has seized loose bunch of loose sheets seized in the respective bunch do not have any incriminating material which would justify the action of addition of share capital subscription Rs. 50,70,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also discussed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order hence needless to reiterate the same. Keeping in view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed on merit as well as tax effect.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th January, 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 30th January, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata 2. Respondent – Sunrise Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., 67/17, Strand Road, Nimtala, Kolkata-700006 3. Ld. CIT(A)-26, Kolkata 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)