ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI vs. SHRIDHAR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment illegal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
A search and seizure action was conducted on the assessee as part of the AMP Group. During assessment, the AO made additions of Rs. 2,94,000/- and Rs. 1,52,09,131/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the approval granted under Section 153D was valid and whether the entire search assessment was illegal due to procedural defects.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI VIMAL KUMARShridhar Portfolio
Assessee by: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Department by: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.06.2024 Date of 10.07.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM
The Revenue department’s appeal is against order dated 31.08.2019 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as “Learned CIT(A)”] arising out of order dated 29.12.2017 of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred as “Learned AO”).
Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action was carried out on AMP group and other related cases on 16.09.2015 at the various residential and business premises. Search under section 132(1) of the Act was interalia conducted at premises of assessee at House No. PVT-1A, KH No. 871, Gali No. 1, Block-B1, Parvatiya Aanchal Nagar, village Burari, Delhi of M/s. Shridhar Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd. on 16.09.2015 as a part of AMP Group. The case was centralized by the CIT Central – II New Delhi vide order dated 5.4.2016. Notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 2.9.2016. In response the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 14,43,320/- on 12.09.2016. The assessee furnished copy of return of income filed on 12.09.2016. Notice under section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 17.2.2017 was issued to assessee. Fresh notice dated 20.7.2017 was issued to assessee. Authorised representative (AR) for assessee company appeared on 6.11.2017 and filed copies of return of income and balance sheet with its annexure. Another notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 13.11.2017. AR of assessee appeared on 11.12.2017 and filed submissions. A showcause letter dated 19.12.2017 was issued to assessee. AR of assessee filed reply dated 27.12.2017. During assessment proceedings with approval of Learned Joint CIT under section 153D Learned AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 made additions of Rs. 2,94,000/- and Rs. 1,52,09,131/-.
The assessee filed appeal before Learned CIT(A) which was partly allowed. Action of treating the transactions represented by increase in short terms borrowings/unsecured loan as accommodation entries was confirmed and additions were deleted.
Being aggrieved revenue department preferred present appeal.
Learned Authorised Representative for revenue submitted that Learned CIT(A) had erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,03,131/-(i.e. Rs. 2,94,000/- + Rs. 1,52,09,131/-) made by the AO on account of Commission @ 2% on protective basis (substantive additions made in the case of Shri Deepak Aggarwal).
Learned authorized representative for assessee submitted that against impugned order assessee’s appeal No. 8865/Del/2019 has been allowed.
From examination of records it is crystal clear that against impugned order dated 31.08.2019 the assessee’s appeal has been allowed. The approval under section 153D of the Act granted by Learned Joint CIT was held to be in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and the entire search assessment was declared illegal and bad in law. So, revenue department’s appeal deserves dismissal as infructuous.
In the result, the Revenue department’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026