DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI vs. RAMESHWER DASS, DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
These are appeals preferred by the Assessees against the orders of the Ld.
First Appellate Authority in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld.
Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:-
ITA No. &
Assessment
Year
CIT(A) who passed the order
Appeal No. & Date of order of the CIT(A)
AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order
Section of the IT Act under which the AO passed the order
136/Del/2020
2011-12
CIT(A)-
23,
New
Delhi
34 to 40/2019-20,
Dated 31.10.2019
DCIT,
Central Circle-
03, New Delhi.
Dated
30.12.2018
153C r.w.s.
153A
137/Del/2020
2012-13
-
DO-
-
DO -
-
Do -
-
DO -
138/Del/2020
2013-14
- DO-
- DO -
- DO -
- DO -
139/Del/2020
2014-15
- DO-
- DO -
- DO -
- DO -
42/Del/2020
2011-12
- DO-
- DO -
- DO -
- DO -
41/Del/2020
2014-15
- DO-
41/2019-20
DCIT,
Central Circle-
03, New Delhi.
Dated
26.12.2018
- DO -
On hearing both the sides, we find that the grounds of the Revenue are very ambiguously worded as follows:- “1. Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in relying on the ratio held in Kabul Chawla 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) and in holding that completed assessment could not be interfered by the AO without
ITAs No.136 to 139/Del/2020 &
ITA Nos.41 & 42/Del/2020
incriminating material. On the contrary, for making the assessment u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, the Act does not stipulate any such conditionality on AO.
The order of the CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
After hearing the ld. DR, we find that except for the contentions in support of the ground in general terms and supporting the order of the ld. AO, the ld. DR could not cite and rely specific material, for each AY involved separately or commutatively, which was relied by the Ld. AO and which has been otherwise considered to be not incriminating piece of evidence by the ld.CIT(A), to quash the impugned additions. The settled proposition of law, after the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxman.com 399/293 Taxman 141/459 ITR 212 being that in case of unabated years the assessment in search cases can be on the basis of incriminating material, for that relevant AY, seized in search alone. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the then binding precedent in the case of CIT (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which has been considered and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra). Thus, the order of the ld.CIT(A) requires no intervention. The grounds have no substance the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
ITAs No.136 to 139/Del/2020 &
ITA Nos.41 & 42/Del/2020
As regards the assessee’s appeals, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals by a statement of ld. Counsel made at the Bar. The appeals of the assessee are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025. (M. BALAGANESH) (ANUBHAV SHARMA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 02nd April, 2025. dk