SUSHIL SINGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

All these appeals are having identical issues and hence, taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The only core issue to the decided in this appeal is as to whether the addition towards cash deposits made in the bank account in the sums of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 2 lac and Rs. 1,50,000/- could be made in the hands of the assessee for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 , 1558 & 1559/Del/2023 Sushil Singla respectively in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search in respect of unabated assessment.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has field the original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 17.07.2014, for AY 2015-16 on 13.08.2015 and for AY 2016-17 on 19.07.2016. A search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of the assessee on 06.06.2018. As on the date of search no proceeding for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were pending and hence, these three assessments become unabated assessments. The time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act had already expired for aforesaid three assessments as on the date of search. Hence, as per section 153A of the Act, unabated assessment already concluded for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be justified unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search qua the addition made towards cash deposits in the bank account. We find that the ld AO in the search assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act for the aforesaid years had merely examined the bank account maintained by the assessee with UBI and had resorted to make addition towards cash deposit made in the said bank account. Admittedly this bank account disclosed bank account of the assessee and was not found during the course of search. Moreover, the ld AO while making an addition towards cash deposit in the bank account had not referred to any seized document in the assessment order. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the addition made towards cash deposit in bank account were made recuperation of any incriminating material found during the course of search. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd reported in 454 ITR 212 (SC) where it had been categorically held that in respect completed assessment/unabated assessments no addition can be made by AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course , 1558 & 1559/Del/2023 Sushil Singla of search u/s 132 or 132A of the Act. Respectfully, following the said decision the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.