FOCUS HEIGHTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2130/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2025AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were not valid. The Tribunal referred to the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which established that any addition in furtherance of a search action involving an "unabated" assessment must be based on specific incriminating or seized material. The assessment years in question (2011-12 to 2014-15) were unabated at the time of the search. The Tribunal found that mere blank letterheads, as found in this case, do not constitute incriminating material. They are "dumb" documents and cannot form the basis for any addition. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contentions and quashed all the impugned assessments for the four assessment years. The consequential penalty appeals were also allowed as the foundation for the penalties (the assessments) did not exist.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s RG Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., filed eight appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. Four quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 2128 to 2131/Del/2022) for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the orders of the CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Four consequential penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 1172 to 1175/Del/2023) challenge the orders of the CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessments were framed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal, on 29.12.2018. The core of the dispute revolves around incriminating material seized during a search on 22.06.2016, which consisted of an original copy of a Hard Disc.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessments framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act are valid, given the nature of the seized material? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the incriminating evidence inventorized from the Hard Disc comprised blank letterheads of four suppliers (M/s Fibertech Enterprises, M/s Zenith Enterprises, M/s Malik International, and M/s Supreme International). The assessee contended that these blank letterheads, when deciphered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, were found to be nothing but blank. Therefore, no incriminating material existed to warrant additions. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the departmental authorities found and seized the blank letterheads from the assessee's hard disk. Post-search inquiries indicated these suppliers were non-existent entities. The Revenue contended that this situation led to the inference that these were accommodation entry providers, justifying the disallowance of depreciation, cost of acquisition, and interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Ady
For Respondent: Shri Jitener Singh, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 26.08.2025Pronounced: 28.08.2025

Heard together (8 matters)

ITA No. 2128/Del/2022
ITA No. 2129/Del/2022
ITA No. 2130/Del/2022
ITA No. 2131/Del/2022
ITA No. 1172/Del/2023
ITA No. 1173/Del/2023
ITA No. 1174/Del/2023
ITA No. 1175/Del/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. These assessee’s four quantum appeals to 2131/Del/2022; for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, arise against CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 30.06.2022 passed in case nos. 10288, 10289, 10291 & 10303/2018-19; respectively in proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. It’s as many consequential penalty appeals ITA nos. 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 herein are directed against CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s separate orders; all dated 29.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant eight appeals indicates at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessments itself, all framed by the Assessing Officer i.e. learned DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal on 29.12.2018. This is for the precise reason that the learned senior counsel has invited our attention to the relevant panchnama herein dated 22.06.2016 (page 5 of the paper book) wherein the corresponding incriminating evidence inventorized is “original copy of Hard Disc” whose transcriptions; as deciphered by the departmental authorities under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals that they had come across the corresponding material involving the four parties/ suppliers, namely, M/s Fibertech Enterprises; M/s Zenith Enterprises; M/s Malik International; and M/s Supreme International. That being the case, the assessee’s again takes us to pages 14 to 17 in the paper book compiling the alleged incriminating material which is found as nothing but blank letter heads of all the preceding four entities.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that once the departmental authorities had found/ seized the said incriminating material/ blank to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. letter heads from the assessee’s hard disk and the post search inquiries specifically indicated them to be non-existent entities, the only inference could be drawn is that these are accommodation entry providers of various fixed assets whose depreciation as well as cost of acquisition and interest etc. has been rightly disallowed, forming subject matter of our adjudication on merits.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement rival submissions. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that hon’ble apex court’s recently landmark decision in Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) has already settled the law that any addition in furtherance to a search action involving an “unabated” assessment is to be based on specific incriminating/ seized material. The impugned assessment years herein A.Yrs. 2011-12 to 2014-15 are admittedly “unabated” ones only as on the date of search on 22.06.2016. There is further no dispute that all what the department alleges herein is that the above blank letter heads of the assessee’s suppliers in fact amount to incriminating material only. We are of the considered opinion that such mere blank letter heads would hardly constitute any incriminating material, being in the nature of “dumb” document so as to lead to any addition based upon the contents thereof. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions and quash all the impugned assessments forming subject matter of adjudication in these four assessment years going by their lordships’ landmark hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in its first and foremost legal ground in very terms.

All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.

5.

Same order to follow in assessee’s consequential penalty appeals to 1175/Del/2023 being consequential in nature going by fundamento cadit to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. non opus i.e. if the foundation itself does not exist, any superstructure raised thereupon falls automatically. Ordered accordingly.

These assessee’s eight appeals are hereby allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.

Order pronounced in open court on 28.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →