ACIT-CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PARWANOO

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 20.11.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 153A(1)(b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure was conducted at the premises of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act. Thereafter the assessment was framed for six assessment years prior to the date of search u/s 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition vide common order dated 20.11.2019 passed in assessee’s appeal relating to assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search action and that as per the settled law in the case of completed assessment (not abated) on the date of search, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action, no additions can be made in an assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act of Act. The Ld. CIT(A) in this respect has relied on the various judicial decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of “All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.” 120 DTR 89 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla” 234 Taxman 300 ( Delhi) and in “Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns ‘N’ Petals”, ITA 306/2017 and others decided vide order dated 25.5.2017.

The ld. DR has been fair enough to admit that the additions in this case have not been made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the search action at the premises of the assessee. He has also not disputed that the original assessments for the assessment year under consideration stood completed and not abated as on the date of search i.e.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) followed by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs RSA Digi Prints 2017 (9) TMI 530.