NAKUL TYAGI,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

We notice at the outset that the entire batch of the instant six appeals has arisen from the department’s search action dated 09.10.2013 in Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. And the relevant assessment years involved herein are AYs 2008- 09 to 2013-14 except AY 2009-10. Meaning thereby, that all the 2 | P a g e former four assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 involve “unabated” assessments since the last date of issuing 143(2) notices (for AY: 2012-13) was very well over as on the date of search coming to 09.10.2013.

It is in this factual backdrop that we sought to ascertain from both the parties as to whether the corresponding additions or disallowances; as the case may be, made herein in these former four assessment years are strictly based on the specific seized material or not in light of hon’ble apex court recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). The Revenue could hardly dispute that all what the learned Assessing Officer’s identical assessment framed on 29th March, 2016 had done was to estimate the assessee’s foreign travel expenses of Rs. 5 lakhs right from the first and foremost assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The other addition made in the assessee’s hands was some cash purchases which were claimed as gifted from her father to her whose details are nowhere forthcoming so as to be treated as any incriminating material. We thus see merit in the assessee’s instant former four appeals 2852, 2853 & 2854/Del/2018 challenging the learned lower authorities’

3 | P a g e action not making any addition based on the specific seized materials. The department’s cross appeal is hardly found to be carrying any substance since not satisfying the above legal test which is hereby dismissed in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

Coming to the assessee’s last remaining appeal involving an “abated” assessment in AY 2013-14, we are informed that the CIT(A) has already deleted the foreign travel expenses of Rs.5 lakhs herein. So far as her latter substantive ground of jewellery purchases of Rs.67,700/- is concerned, she very fairly submits not to press for the same keeping in mind smallness of the amount involved. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant last appeal ITA No. 2855/Del/2018 is partly allowed. All other remaining pleadings herein stand rendered academic in above terms.

These assessee’s former four appeals 2852, 2853 & 2854/Del/2018 are allowed and her last appeal ITA No.2855/Del/2018 is partly allowed and the Revenues’ cross