BAKLIWAL HOLDING PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., held that an assessment completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) is an unabated assessment and cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 without incriminating material. It was further held that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence, and the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.

What were the facts?

The PCIT initiated revisional proceedings u/s 263 against the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, alleging the AO failed to verify loans received by the assessee totaling Rs. 16 crores. The assessee contended that the assessment was completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) as an unabated assessment, with all details filed, and no incriminating material was found during search to justify additions.

What were the issues?

Whether PCIT can invoke revisional powers u/s 263 for an assessment completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) without incriminating material, and whether the assessee discharged the onus of proving loan genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

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 BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR
Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 30.04.2024

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by both the Revenue and the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred

1.

ITAs No.2843/Del/2022; & ITAs No.391 & 392/Del/2021 to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short)/Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Ld. PCIT) in appeals filed before them 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:- Appeal No. & Date AO who Section of the who passed the of order of the passed the IT Act under order CIT(A) assessment which the AO order & Date passed the of order order 263 2843/Del/2022 CIT(A)-31, 1144/22-23 DCIT, Central R.w.s. New Delhi date 22.09.2022 Cir.30, New 153C Delhi, date 29.12.2021 391/Del/2021 Pr. CIT PCIT (Central), ACIT, Central 153C/ 143(3) (Central), Delhi-3/ Revision- Cir.30, New Delhi-3 263 Delhi, date /100000168299/2021 27.12.2018 392/Del/2021 - Do - PCIT (Central), - Do - - Do - Delhi-3/ Revision- 263 /100000168298/2021

2.

Heard and perused the record. 2.1 On hearing the ld. AR, it comes up that ITAs No.391 & 392/Del/2021 arise out of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. PCIT, on the basis of assessment record had examined the receipt of loan of Rs.3.50 crores from M/s Beefin Commodities Ltd. and Rs.12.50 crores from M/s Jajodia Finance Ltd. in AY 2012-13; and Rs.11.50 crores in AY 2013-14. The PCIT examined the same on the basis of Investigation Wing, Kolkata inputs and had concluded that the AO had not made independent verification/inquiry. The ld. AR, however, canvassed that the AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and requisite

ITAs No.2843/Del/2022; & ITAs No.391 & 392/Del/2021 details along with confirmations were filed before the AO. However, what is material is that the assessment was completed on 27.12.2018 u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Thus, it was a case of unabated assessment which had attained finality on the date of search. The law in this regard being that no addition over and above originally assessed income can be made unless there is incriminating material found for the said year during the course of search. It comes up from the order of the ld.PCIT that this objection of the assessee was not sustained for the reason that Revenue had preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Apar Industries Ltd. However, now the issue stands squarely covered after the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399.

3.

We are in agreement with the contention of the ld. AR that when the invocation of jurisdiction itself by the AO was invalid, by exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act, the PCIT could not have infused life in an assessment order void ab initio. Thus impugned assessment order could not have been subject matter of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.

4.

The aforesaid findings when applied pari materia to the Revenue’s appeal in on the one hand make the effect giving order dated 19.12.2021, which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) giving rise to the present appeal of the Revenue redundant. On the other hand, we are ITAs No.2843/Del/2022; & ITAs No.391 & 392/Del/2021 satisfied that the CIT(A) has duly appreciated the evidences like giving a categorical finding on the basis of evidences that the assessee was able to discharge the onus with regard to the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors. We find no substance in the grounds of the Revenue.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →