DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment proceedings were completed before the search, any additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the additions were deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's original assessment was completed before a search under Section 132. Subsequently, a notice under Section 153A was issued, leading to a revised assessment. The assessee argued that additions made under Section 153A were invalid without incriminating material found during the search.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made under Section 153A are valid without incriminating material when the original assessment was already completed before the search. Whether disallowances under Section 40A(3) and claims for deduction under Section 80HHC/80IB are permissible without seized material.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 153A,Section 40A(3),Section 80HHC,Section 80IB,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Kabul Chawla3,235 citing380 ITR 573 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.1,823 citing374 ITR 645 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
per order dated 18/12/2007. Such assessment order was passed in response to the original return of income filed by the assessee on 29/10/2005 declaring total income of INR 1 0640958/–. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act at INR 3 0178411/–. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the act on a 28/3/2006. The assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was completed on 18/12/2007 at the total income of INR 1 4451319/– and the deduction u/s 80 IB to the extent of Rs. 28592709/– was allowed to the assessee. The learned assessing officer made only addition/disallowance is with respect to the staff training expenses incurred on directors on to the tune of Rs. 2224659/–. The assessee did not file any appeal against the order passed by the learned assessing officer u/s 143 (3) of the income tax act. 37. Subsequently search took place of on 10/2/2009. The notices u/s 153A of the income tax act was also issued to the assessee against which the assessee filed the return of income and consequently the assessment u/s 153A) of the income tax act was passed on 19/8/2011 wherein the learned assessing officer has made the disallowance is u/s 40A (3) of the income tax act as well as certain other disallowances. The total taxable income of the assessee was determined at INR 1 70129886/–. On appeal before the learned CIT – A appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Therefore, both the parties are in appeal before us. 38. Coming to the appeal of the assessee wherein it has been contested that the additions made by the learned assessing officer are bad in law as there is no incriminating material found during the course of search. It is further stated that the assessment proceedings to the concluded on the date of initiation of the search and therefore if any additions/disallowances are required to be made should be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search.
The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and reiterated the argument that there is no requirement of having any incriminating material to make any addition u/s 153A of the income tax act.
We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is apparent that on the date of initiation of search on 10/2/2009 the assessment proceedings u/s 143 (3) of the income tax act was completed on 18/12/2007. Therefore on the date of search no assessment proceedings were pending for the impugned assessment year. Therefore if any addition is required to be made by the learned assessing officer should have been made on the basis of the seized material found during the course of search. We have perused the various additions/disallowances made by the learned assessing officer and found that there is no discretion of any seized material found during the course of search based on which these disallowances/additions have been made. The learned departmental representative also could not show us any seized material based on which the said additions have been made. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT vs Kabul Chawla (supra) the above additions deserve to be deleted. Accordingly we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance of payment in contravention is of provisions of section 40A (3) of the income tax act, disallowance of expenses on account of non-deduction and
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026