ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S RASOYA PROTEINS LTD, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 37/NAG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 September 2023AY 2007-2008Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions made in an unabated assessment framed under Section 153A must be based on seized material. Since no such material was found, the assessments were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders which held that the assessments framed under Section 153A were not sustainable for want of incriminating material. The assessment years were unabated at the time of search, and the AO had made additions based on book results, not seized material.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 153A in unabated assessment years are valid without incriminating material seized during the search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 139(1)

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, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE

Hearing: 28.08.2023Pronounced: 28.09.2023

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.:

1.

These Revenue’s twin appeals, for assessment years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur’s as many separate orders nos.CIT(A)-3/13 & 14/2016-17, both dated 29.12.2017, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.

153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively. None appeared for assessee despite service of notice. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 I.T.A.Nos.37 & 38/NAG./2018

2.

We find with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that it’s identical former substantive grievance in both these cases is legal in nature wherein it seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings holding these twin assessments as not sustainable in law for want of the corresponding incriminating material found and seized during the course of the search action herein dated 08.08.2012.

3.

We wish to make it clear that both these are “unabated” assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 as on the date of the search wherein the assessee had duly filed it’s sec.139(1) returns followed by the processing thereof u/sec.143(1) of the Act. This is indeed coupled with the fact that all what the learned Assessing Officer had done in both these cases was to enhance the assessee’s income treating it’s book results as an instance of decline in yield of refined oil.

Meaning thereby that he had gone by the assessee’s regular book results only than making any addition based on the relevant incriminating material seized during the course of search. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing before us.

4.

We find in this factual backdrop that hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) has already settled the very issue in assessee’s favour and against

3 I.T.A.Nos.37 & 38/NAG./2018 the department that any addition made in the course of an ‘unabated assessment’ framed u/sec.153A has to be based on the seized material only. We reject the Revenue’s instant twin appeals on this legal issue itself therefore. Ordered accordingly.

5.

All other Revenue’s pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

6.

These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.37 & 38/Nag./ 2018 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →