PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 vs. M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

concerned assessment years making additions, inter alia, on account of low household withdrawals and deemed deduction u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. It was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that no evidence was found during the course of search so as to warrant an addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that the additions need not be restricted only to the seized material. The Tribunal concluded that: 'If some incriminating material is found in respect of such assessment years for which the assessment is not pending, then, the total income would be determined by considering the originally determined income plus income emanating from the incriminating material found during the course of search'. That is how, the additions made u/s 2(22)(e), which were not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search, were held to be unsustainable in law and, hence, deleted. The Hon'ble High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal. It summarized the legal position in para 37 of its judgment as under :- 'On a conspectus of Section 153A(l) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the „total income‟ of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 12:10:00

reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.

101, annexure A-22) the assessee group made disclosure of additional income on account of undisclosed loans/advances." In our considered opinion, this contention does not take the case of the Revenue any further. What has been written by the Assessing Officer in the remand report is that there were certain undisclosed loans and advances for which the assessee group made disclosure of additional income. This exhibits that the assessee group voluntarily made disclosure of certain undisclosed loans/advances and offered additional income to that extent. It implies that the creditors which have been instantly added u/s 68 of the Act do not form part of the undisclosed loans/advances which were surrendered by the assessee group for which some incriminating material was found. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the assessment order itself, as has been candidly admitted by the ld. DR as well, that there is no reference to any incriminating material in the assessment order qua these creditors/advances in respect of which addition of Rs.24.39 crore was made. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra), we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.24.93 crore and odd.

& Anr [2024 SCC OnLine Del 2551]. 4. We, accordingly, find that the appeals raise no substantial questions of law. They shall consequently stand dismissed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 27, 2024/RW This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 12:10:00