PREMLATA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

Although, assessee has raised as many as 8 grounds in appeal but the Learned Counsel admitted that except ground nos. 5 & 6, the assessee does not want to press other grounds of appeal

Learned Counsel submitted that the search was carried out on Mr. Padam Sain Gupta and others on 22.01.2018. The Learned Counsel further contended that during the course of search and seizure operation, no incriminating document was found and seized against the assessee. Learned Counsel further contended that on the date of search i.e. 22.01.2018, the assessment of assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 was completed and the same was not pending, therefore, as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., 2023 (4) TMI 1056 – Supreme Court wherein, it was held that the completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment order under Section 153A of the Act only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search.

Learned CIT-DR relied on the order of authorities below particularly the CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition in the hands of assessee on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case which can’t be interfered.

From first appellate order, we note that Learned CIT(A) restricted and reduced the addition to Rs.33,19,010/- and there is no appeal by the Department against ground of relief by the Learned CIT(A) to the assessee perhaps due to low tax effect. From the relevant part, para 6 of first appellate order, we note that the Learned CIT(A) did not controvert that the present A.Y. 2012-13 is the year where on the date of search, assessments were completed but he denied relief to the assessee by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 367 ITR 517 and Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (Central), [2016] 75 Taxman.com 215 (Kerala). However, now the issue has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court by rendering judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra) approving the proposition of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 2015 (9) TMI 80. In said judgments, it was categorically held by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that completed assessments can be Premlata Gupta vs. ACIT 4 interfered with by the AO while making assessment order under Section 153A of the Act only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. As we have found, as noted above that there is no incriminating material in the hands of Assessing Officer, which was found and seized during the course of a search operation held on 22.01.2018, therefore, the completed assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 cannot be interfered in absence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation. Accordingly, ground nos.5 and 6 of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed.