TECHNO SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the orders dated 11/03/2015 of CIT (A)-51, Mumbai, the assessee has filed appeals for the above mentioned three assessment years (AY.s). Assessee-company,is engaged in business of providing management consultancy services to various corporate bodies.An action u/s. 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the Ispat Industries group on 30/11/2010. Assessee is a sister-concern of the Ispat Group and was also covered under the search and seizure action.As most of the issues in the appeal are similar, so, we are adjudicating them together.A Notice u/s. 153 A were issued on 17/1/2012. The details of dates of filing of return, returned incomes, dates of assessment u/s/ 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and assessed incomes can be summarized as under :- AY. ROI filed on Returned income (Rs.) Order u/s. 153A Assessed Incomes r.w.s. 143(3) 2009-10 09/05/2012 17,56,116/- 22/03/2013 24,27,756/- 2010-11 09/05/2012 39,70,117/- 22/03/2013 50,72,580/- 2011-12 28/09/2011 86,40,288/- 22/03/2013 93,50,950/- ITA/3813/Mum/15-AY.2009-10: 2.During the assessment proceedings,the assessee was directed to reconcile total receipts as reflected in Form No.26AS with the total receipts credited to P&L Account.In response to the directions,it filed a chart containing the details such as name of the person income earned and tax deducted at source etc.The AO observed that the assessee was in receipt of certain income

3813-14,3816- Techno Solutions(India) Ltd. that were not taken into account in the books . He made an addition of Rs. 6.71 lakhs under the head difference between the total income as per the Form No.26AS and total income shown in the books of account.

2.1.Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and made detailed submissions who directed the AO to verify certain additions and balance amount was confirmed. 2.2.Before us, the Authorised Representative stated that proceeding for AY 2009-10 was over on the date of the search, that on that date no proceedings were pending, that proceedings for the year under appeal did not abate, that the AO could deal only with the issue that was found during the course of search, that only the undisclosed income detected could be added in the hands of the assessee, that the AO had made addition on account of alleged difference in Form No.26 AS and books of account,that there was no mention of any material found during the course of search in the assessment order. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of All Cargo Global Logistics (374 ITR 645)and stated that order passed by AO was bad in law.The Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 2.3.We have heard rival submission and find that search and seizure action was carried out in group companies by department , that on the date of search the assessment for the year under appeal was over, that the AO had not referred to any seized material found /seized during the search and seizure proceeding while passing assessment order, that the only addition is on account of difference in figures appearing in Form No. 26AS and books of account as assessment is not based on some seized material,.So, in our opinion, the order passed by AO and FAA is invalid. In the matter of All Cargo Global Logistics (supra),the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly held that where the assessments are over no addition can be made to the income of assessee without referring to a seized document/asset.Therefore, reversing the order of FAA, we decide the effective Ground of appeal in favour of the assessee . 3814 and 3816/Mum/2015 -A.Y.s2010-11 and 2011-12: 3.The effective Ground of appeal in both the years are about addition made on account of difference appearing in the Form No.26As and books of account.The AO,during the assessment proceedings,held that entries reflected in Form No.26AS could not be reconciled with the income disclosed in the P&L Accounts in both the years. The AO made addition of Rs.11.02 lakhs and Rs.7.10 lakhs for the AY.s 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. In the appellate proceedings ,the FAA alowed partial relief. 2