DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHABINAA KHAN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 407/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2018AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. The lower appellate authority had granted relief by following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the assessee based on information that she was carrying cash. The Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment order passed under section 153A, but no incriminating material was found during the search.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under section 153A are valid in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search operation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 54, Mumbai [ld. CIT(A)] dated 27.10.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act dated 18.03.2014.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal

1.

raised by Revenue are covered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.(ITA No. 523, 1969 of 2013). The ld. AR Mum 2017 -Ms Shabinaa Khan of the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 153A by making certain addition which was made in absence of any incriminating material against the assessee in the search operation carried out on 06.04.2011. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra). The ld. DR for the Revenue after going through the order of ld. CIT(A), though supported the order of lower authorities and contended that the assessee was granted relief by following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra)

3. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that the search action under section 132 was carried out in case of assessee at Mumbai Airport on 06.04.2011. The search was carried out on the basis of information received from Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) Chennai that assessee is travelling by flight from Chennai to Mumbai was carrying cash. Consequent upon information search was carried on the assessee.

The statement of assessee was recorded under section 131 on 19.04.2011.

Notice under section 153A dated 14.02.2012 was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 15.03.2012 declaring 2 Mum 2017 -Ms Shabinaa Khan the income which was originally declared while filing return under section 139(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143A on 18.03.2014, the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made a number of addition and disallowances. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), all the impugned addition was deleted holding that no incriminating material qua the various addition was found during the course.

4.

We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order by following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra). The Revenue failed to bring any cogent material to our notice or any contrary law to take any contrary decision.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue. 5. In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 153A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →