Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals arose from assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, and consequential penalty appeals under Section 271(1)(c). The core issue was the validity of these assessments based on alleged incriminating material found during a search.
Held
The Tribunal held that blank letterheads found during the search do not constitute incriminating material. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal quashed the assessments and consequential penalty proceedings as the foundation for addition was absent.
Key Issues
Whether blank letterheads seized during a search can be considered incriminating material to sustain assessments under Section 153A and consequential penalty proceedings.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. These assessee’s four quantum appeals to 2131/Del/2022; for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, arise against CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 30.06.2022 passed in case nos. 10288, 10289, 10291 & 10303/2018-19; respectively in proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. It’s as many consequential penalty appeals ITA nos. 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 herein are directed against CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s separate orders; all dated 29.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant eight appeals indicates at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessments itself, all framed by the Assessing Officer i.e. learned DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal on 29.12.2018. This is for the precise reason that the learned senior counsel has invited our attention to the relevant panchnama herein dated 22.06.2016 (page 5 of the paper book) wherein the corresponding incriminating evidence inventorized is “original copy of Hard Disc” whose transcriptions; as deciphered by the departmental authorities under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals that they had come across the corresponding material involving the four parties/ suppliers, namely, M/s Fibertech Enterprises; M/s Zenith Enterprises; M/s Malik International; and M/s Supreme International. That being the case, the assessee’s again takes us to pages 14 to 17 in the paper book compiling the alleged incriminating material which is found as nothing but blank letter heads of all the preceding four entities.
Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that once the departmental authorities had found/ seized the said incriminating material/ blank to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. letter heads from the assessee’s hard disk and the post search inquiries specifically indicated them to be non-existent entities, the only inference could be drawn is that these are accommodation entry providers of various fixed assets whose depreciation as well as cost of acquisition and interest etc. has been rightly disallowed, forming subject matter of our adjudication on merits.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement rival submissions. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that hon’ble apex court’s recently landmark decision in Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) has already settled the law that any addition in furtherance to a search action involving an “unabated” assessment is to be based on specific incriminating/ seized material. The impugned assessment years herein A.Yrs. 2011-12 to 2014-15 are admittedly “unabated” ones only as on the date of search on 22.06.2016. There is further no dispute that all what the department alleges herein is that the above blank letter heads of the assessee’s suppliers in fact amount to incriminating material only. We are of the considered opinion that such mere blank letter heads would hardly constitute any incriminating material, being in the nature of “dumb” document so as to lead to any addition based upon the contents thereof. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions and quash all the impugned assessments forming subject matter of adjudication in these four assessment years going by their lordships’ landmark hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in its first and foremost legal ground in very terms.
All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.
Same order to follow in assessee’s consequential penalty appeals to 1175/Del/2023 being consequential in nature going by fundamento cadit to 2131 of 2022 & 1172 to 1175/Del/2023 - M/s RG Home Furnishing P. Ltd. non opus i.e. if the foundation itself does not exist, any superstructure raised thereupon falls automatically. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s eight appeals are hereby allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Order pronounced in open court on 28.08.2025.