HARVANSH CHAWLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 763/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2021AY 2011-124 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances in Section 153A assessments must have a direct nexus with incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the assessee, leading to assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of disallowance of depreciation and interest expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during search are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A

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 ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, C.A
Hearing: 09.09.2021Pronounced: 09.09.2021

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 763/DEL/2016
ITA No. 764/DEL/2016
ITA No. 765/DEL/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

These three separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against a consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 24, New Delhi dated 27.05.2021 pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.

2.

Since the first appellate authority had disposed of the appeals by way of a consolidated order and since in the captioned appeals before us the grievances of the assessee are identical, therefore, all these appeal are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] was carried out on 07.04.2016. Statutory notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income. Assessment was completed by making addition on account of disallowance of depreciation and on account of disallowance of interest expenses, though the quantum may differ in the captioned appeals.

4.

As mentioned elsewhere, the date of search being 07.04.2016, assessment years under consideration were part of block of six Assessment Years. It is a settled law by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act, additions/disallowances should have direct nexus with incriminating material found at the time of search. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Kabul Chawla in 380 ITR 573 and Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s.

Ferns, ”N” Petals in to 308/2017 dated 25.05.2017 and others.

As the additions/ disallowances are not based on any incriminating material, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, additions are directed to be deleted.

5.

In Assessment Year 2013-14, there is an addition of Rs. 2,02,548/- made on protective basis. The Assessing Officer has made substantive addition of this amount under the provisions of Black Money Act. In our considered view, once the substantive addition has been made under the Black Money Act, the same amount added under the I.T. Act would amount to double addition and since this is a protective addition, it becomes otiose.

6.

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the assessee in 764 and 765/DEL/2021 are allowed.

12.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2021 in the presence of both the rival representatives.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →