Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Shiva Shankar of Income Tax, Minerals Private Limited, Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AACCS5388N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2022 Date of pronouncement: 17.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad’s, order dated 07.08.2020 in case No.10259/2019-20 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards sub- contract expenses on the ground that the addition can only be made on the basis of material seized during Search.
2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer has brought out in the Assessment Order that some of the sub- contractors who were examined have stated that they have not done, any sub-contract work for the assessee company.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the expenses as mining stock written off. without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has not discharged the onus of substantiating such claim as revenue expenses.”
We next note with the able assistance of both the parties that the CIT(A) has quashed the impugned assessment itself as not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course of the search as under :
Learned CIT-DIR vehemently contended during the course of hearing that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Gopal Lal Bhadruka Vs. (2012) DCIT 346 ITR 106 supports the Revenue’s case that a search assessment could very well be framed on altogether a new material which sees light of the day in the corresponding proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments as their lordships’ decision is only applicable in a case wherein the department indeed comes across incriminating material at the time of search than in absence of any such material. We thus place our reliance on the case law considered in the CIT(A)’s order (supra) to affirm the lower appellate findings under challenge.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th March, 2022.