Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted, leading to assessment orders under section 153A of the IT Act. Additions were made under section 68 of the IT Act on a substantive basis, and also on a protective basis. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which was dismissed. The assessee has now appealed to the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under sections 153A or 153C of the IT Act if no incriminating material was found during the search. This is based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Abhisar Buildwell and U.K. Paints (Overseas).
Key Issues
Whether additions can be made under section 153A of the Income Tax Act in a search assessment when no incriminating material was found and the assessment was already completed/unabated.
Sections Cited
68, 132, 153A, 153C, 147, 148, 250, 153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 28/09/2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loan of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 taken during the year towards the income of appellant on law and facts both on substantive basis . The addition made on the protective and substantive basis is illegal and void. The addition has been made on the presumptive basis.
The addition made u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 on substantive basis is illegal and against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has not been found violating the provisions of section 68 but still the impugned order has been passed by the learned officer.
That the Learned CIT (Appeals) had also not apply his mind at the time of passing the order u/s 250. There is no incriminating material found during the Search.
That the order passed by the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT (Appeals) is against the principles of natural justice of the case.
That the Approval u/s 153D has been given without application of mind and. the impugned order passed deserves to be dropped.”
(B) In this case, a search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was conducted on Shri Kailash Chand Jain & Others on 14/12/2020, in pursuance whereof assessment order dated 26/09/2022 was passed under section 153A of the I.T. Act and addition amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- was made under section 68 of the I.T. Act on substantive basis; while protective additions were made in the hands of the respective lenders. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short).
(C) The aforesaid additions was made even without any incriminating material found in the course of search u/s 132 of I.T. Act. He further submitted that at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue as to whether addition can be made in a search assessment in the absence of any incriminating material is now well settled in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/(2023) 293 Taxman 141 (SC)/(2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). He further submitted that the Lucknow Bench of ITAT in the case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 687 (Lucknow Trib.), considered aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the same. He also submitted that moreover, in the case of Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Order dated 21/01/2025 in and 147/Lkw/2023) also, identical issue has been decided by Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that in the present appeal also, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating documents found in the course of search. Relying on the aforesaid cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra), Smt. Shashi Agarwal (supra) and Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra), he contended that the addition made in the assessment order should be deleted. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue fairly accepted that the aforesaid addition of Rs.1 Cr was made even without any incriminating material found in the course of search u/s 132 of IT Act. The learned Departmental Representative also did not dispute the claim made from assessee’s side that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid precedents. However, he relied on the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A), and the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer.
(D) We have heard both sides and have gone through the materials placed on record. In the case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (supra), co-ordinate bench of ITAT Lucknow has decided the matter in favour of the assessee, relying on the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra). The relevant portion of the order of Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT (supra) is reproduced as under: -
“(C) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. There is no dispute regarding relevant facts. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further it is also not in dispute that no assessment proceedings were pending in the cases of the assessee at the time of search conducted on 08/07/2016 in the case of the assessee, u/s 132 of the IT Act. Further, as no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 08/07/2016, the case of the assessee falls in the category of unabated/completed assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and within the meaning of order passed in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which stands approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dint of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra). Further, in paragraph 14 of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under:
“14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under:
(i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.
The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.”
(C.1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) widened the application of the order in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) to assessments conducted u/s 153C of the IT Act also. In both orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in respect of the completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made in assessment order passed u/s 153A or passed u/s 153C of the IT Act in respect of which incriminating materials were not found in the course of search action u/s 132A of the Act; although Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers u/s 147/148 of the IT Act subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned u/s 147/148 of the IT Act. Thus, although the powers of the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the IT Act were saved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra), subject to fulfillment of conditions envisaged u/s 147/148 of the IT Act; it has been categorically held that in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no additions can be made u/s 153A or under section 153C of the Act if incriminating material was not found / unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the additions made.
(C.2) The issue whether additions can be made in assessment orders passed u/s 153A or u/s 153C of IT Act in cases falling under unabated/completed assessments, when no incriminating material was found at the time of search u/s 132 of the IT Act, was a disputed issue in the past. While a view in favour of assessee was taken, for example, in cases such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 523 (Guj), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing 374 ITR 645 (Bom.), Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. Pr.CIT 437 ITR 673 (Orissa), CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (Cal.), Pr.CIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. 443 ITR 574 (Kar.), Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT 404 ITR 642 (Ker.), Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan), etc.; courts took a view in favour of Revenue in cases reported as CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (supra), CIT vs. Mahndipur Balaji 447 ITR 517 (All.), CIT vs. K. P. Ummer 413 ITR 251 (Ker.), Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre vs. DCIT 362 ITR 664 (Ker.), E. N. Gopakumar 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala), etc. The issue has now been finally settled by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) wherein view in favour of assessee has been taken.
(C.2.1) In the present appeals before us, the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the IT Act. Further, we have already noted earlier that the relevant facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search u/s 132 of the IT Act in respect of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further it is also not in dispute that no assessment proceedings were pending in the cases of the assessee at the time of search conducted on 08/07/2016 in the case of the assessee, u/s 132 of the IT Act. Furthermore, as no assessment proceedings were pending in the case of the assessee at the time when (on 08/07/2016) search u/s 132 of the IT Act was conducted, the case of the assessee in the present appeals before us, falls in the category of completed/unabated assessments within the meaning of orders passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) which was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra). In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case before us, and further, as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, we are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and Dy. CIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) and by the aforesaid instruction No. 1 of 2023 of CBDT, which is binding on Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made amounting to a total of Rs.2,24,81,900/- for assessment year 2015-16 and addition amounting to Rs.44,25,000/- for assessment year 2016-17.
(C.2.2) Since we have directed that the aforesaid additions be deleted, the other issues regarding merits of the additions made in the aforesaid two years, become merely academic in nature and do not require any adjudication. Therefore, we decline to make any order with regard to the merits of the various additions made.” (D.1) Identical view, in favour of the assessee, has also been taken by Lucknow Bench of ITAT, in the case of Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
(D.2) No material has been brought to our attention from either side to distinguish the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us from the facts and circumstances of the precedents mentioned in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order; or to persuade us to take a view different from view taken in precedents mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (C) of this order. In the present case, addition has been made on substantive basis. However, it is irrelevant whether the addition is made on substantive basis or protective basis; and no additions could have been made in either situation, when no incriminating material was found at the time of search u/s 132 of IT Act. The ratio of these precedents is applicable irrespective of whether the additions is made on substantive basis or protective basis, when no incriminating material is found in the course of search u/s 132 of IT Act in the case of assessee.
(D.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and DCIT vs U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd (2023) 150 Taxmann.com 108 (SC), and further, on due consideration of aforesaid Instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) [Instruction No.1 of 2023 (F. No.279/Misc./M-54/2023-IT)] directing the field authorities to implement the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra) and U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd (supra), in uniform manner; we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid addition amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
(E.1) In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025)