Loading judgment…
Facts
Multiple appeals were filed by M/s Shri Shyam Infra Pvt. Ltd. and cross-appeals by Jt.C.I.T. and Khem Chand Pawan Kumar Saraf Pvt. Ltd. concerning consolidated orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years ranging from 2015-16 to 2021-22. The core dispute revolves around additions made by the Assessing Officer, primarily concerning alleged "on-money" transactions and undisclosed income, with the assessee arguing that the additions are illegal, unsustainable, and result in double taxation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the issue of assessment orders being barred by limitation was not decided by the CIT(A) and required factual verification. The Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this preliminary issue. For other appeals concerning assessment year 2021-22, the Tribunal noted that the aspect of overall income disclosure sufficiency was also not decided by the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after proper factual verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation and whether the additions made were sustainable in light of self-disclosure and proper factual verification by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
153A, 69C, 132(4A), 292C, 115BBE, 153B, 153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) The appeals filed by Shri Shyam Infra P. Ltd. are against the impugned consolidated order of learned CIT(A) dated 25/01/2024. The appeal vide filed by the assessee and the appeal vide Revenue are the cross appeals against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) dated 29/01/2024. The grounds raised by the assessees and Revenue are as under:
(Assessment year 2015-16)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 3 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 4 (A.Y. 2018-19)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 5 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 6 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 7 (A.Y. 2019-20)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 8 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 9 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 10 (A.Y. 2020-21)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 11 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 12 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 13 (A.Y. 2021-22)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 14 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 15 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 16 (A.Y. 2021-22)
I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 17 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 18 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 19 I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 20 (B) In respect of appeals filed by Shri Shyam Infra Pvt. Ltd. vide 167 – 169/Lkw/2024 for assessment years 2015-16, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the time of hearing that the ground No. 9 taken by the assessee in these appeals regarding assessment orders being barred by limitation be taken up first and decided. He placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Agni Estates and Foundations (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 157 taxmann.com 312 (Madras) and argued that the assessment orders were barred by limitation having regard to provisions of section 153B of the I. T. Act. The learned Departmental Representative did not accept that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. Moreover, we find that this issue has not been decided in the impugned order of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has decided the appeals of the assessee on merits and not on the issue whether the I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 21 assessment orders were barred by limitation. Further, factual verification of relevant facts from original records is necessary, such as date on which the last warrant of authorization for search u/s 132 was executed, and date on which the books of account, documents or assets seized in the course of action u/s 132 of the Act were handed over to the Assessing Officer. These facts are not available with certainty on records of the ITAT presently. In view of the foregoing, the appeals filed by the assessee Shri Shyam Infra Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2015-16, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation, in accordance with law, after making proper factual verification of relevant facts from records, and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. If this issue is decided against the assessee by learned CIT(A), then the assessee will be at liberty to raise grounds of appeal on merits of the additions, in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(C) In the appeals for assessment year 2021-22 in the case of Shri Shyam Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Khem Chand Pawan Kumar Saraf Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2021-22, vide 174, 204/Lkw/2024, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions made were not sustainable because the overall total disclosure made by the assessees by way of income disclosed in returns filed by the assessees were sufficient to cover the additions made by the Assessing Officer. In response to specific query from the Bench, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that overall total disclosures made by the assessees may not have been exactly under the heads on which additions have been made in the assessment order but the overall amounts of disclosure by way of income declared in the returns of income was sufficient to account for the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned D.R. placed reliance on the assessment I.T.(SS)A. Nos.164 & 167 to 170/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 to 21-22 22 order and the order of learned CIT(A). We find that this aspect also has not been decided by the learned CIT(A). Whether the overall total amount of disclosures made by the assessees by way of income declared in returns of income was adequate to cover the additions made in the assessment orders are under specific heads, claims on which proper factual verification is required. In the absence of such verification by learned CIT(A) and as the relevant facts are not available with certainty on the record of the ITAT, this aspect should be first decided by learned CIT(A), in the fitness of things. Therefore, the impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and the CIT(A) is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law after proper factual verification as aforesaid, and providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
(D) In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2025)