PYARE LAL MEHTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 10.02.2015 of the Principal Commissioner of Income

Tax (OSD) cum CIT(A), Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)],

Gurgaon relating to assessment year 2007-08.

CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer in

the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) read with section

153A of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') of Rs.

35,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- in relation to the gifts received by

ITA No.278/Chd/2057- Sh. Praye Lal Mehta, Chandigarh 2

the assessee from relatives and father respectively, during the year

under consideration.

consideration are that a search and seizure operation was conducted

at the residential and business premises of the Mehta and Zandar

Group on 18.2.2011, the assessee being part of that group was also

covered. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section

153A of the Act making the impugned additions of Rs. 65 lakhs into

the income of the assessee on account of certain gifts allegedly

received by the assessee from his relatives during the year under

consideration.

of the assessee that the original assessment proceedings for the

assessment year under consideration had already attained finality as

on the date of search. That even the limitation period for issuance of

notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for initiation of scrutiny assessment

proceedings had expired and further that since no incriminating

material was found during the search action, hence, no additions

were warranted u/s 153A of the Act. He in this respect has relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of

“All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.” 120 DTR 89 and of the Delhi High

Court in the case of “CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla” 234 Taxman 300 (

Delhi) and in “Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns ‘N’

Petals”, ITA 306/2017 and others decided vide order dated

25.5.2017. He has further relied upon the decision dated 28.8.2017

of this Tribunal in the case of relative of the assessee in ITA Nos.

ITA No.278/Chd/2057- Sh. Praye Lal Mehta, Chandigarh 3

275 to 277/Chd/2015 Shri B.L. Mehta, who was also covered in the

same search action, wherein the Tribunal relying upon the aforesaid

decisions of the High Courts has deleted the addition made by the

Assessing officer in the assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act.

authorities, he, however, has been fair enough to admit that the issue

is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in B.L. Mehta’s

case (supra).

of relative of the assessee Shri B.L. Mehta In ITA Nos. 275 to

277/Chd/2015 vide order dated 28.8.2017. The issue, as submitted

by the Ld. representatives of the parties, is covered in favour of the

assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal. The relevant part of

the order of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“8. The above decision has also been followed by another co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Barot (HUF) vs. DCIT” in ITA No.2889/M/2011 & ors. decided on 26.02.2014. We agree with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Shri Jayendra P Jhaveri” (Supra).

Further, the Special Bench Decision in the case of “All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.” (supra) has now been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of ‘All Cargo Logistics’ ITA No.1969 of 2013 and ‘Continental Warehousing Corporation’ ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) decided by common order, wherein, it has been held that in relation to the assessments which have already been concluded, the AO was precluded from making additions on any other issue except relating or concerning to the incriminating material found

ITA No.278/Chd/2057- Sh. Praye Lal Mehta, Chandigarh 4

during the search action. The AO cannot disturb the assessment order or reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered in the course of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act establishes that relief granted under the final assessment/reassessment was contrary to the fact unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. Identical view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd. ITA No.36 of 2009 decided vide order dated 29-10-2010 and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of “Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns ‘N’ Petals (supra)”. We may mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also discussed and distinguished the case of “Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT” in ITA 357/2015 & others dated 27.10.2016, which authority has been relied upon by the Ld. DR. It has been held that in the case of Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT”, incriminating material was found during the search action, however, in the case of “Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns ‘N’ Petals (supra)”, no incriminating material was found during the search action, hence, the additions made by the Assessing officer were not justified.

ITA No.278/Chd/2057- Sh. Praye Lal Mehta, Chandigarh 5

Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 10.04.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR