Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 challenged an order based on proceedings under Section 153A. The primary issue was the validity of the assessment, which the assessee argued was flawed due to a lack of incriminating material found during the search.
Held
The Tribunal held that merely not finding the assessee at the given address during a search does not constitute incriminating material. Therefore, additions made without specific seized material, as per the precedent of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell, are not valid.
Key Issues
The core issue was whether the absence of the assessee at their declared address during a search, without any other incriminating material, can validate an assessment under Section 153A.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 153A(1)(b), 68
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: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon’s order dated 15.01.2025 in case No. 10398/CIT(A)- 3/GGN/2019-20 in proceedings 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned section 153A assessment dated 31.12.2019 challenge the same for want of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search herein dated 22.01.2018. We sought to verify this clinching fact from the Revenue’s side represented by the learned CIT(DR) who has taken us to para 3 in the assessment order that the assessee was not even found at the address declared in the income tax return which renders itself as bogus entity only.
The very factual position is stated to have been discussed in the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate order at page 78 as well.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment in A.Y. 2012-13 as on the date of search i.e. 22.01.2018 wherein any addition in course thereof has to be made based on the specific seized material as per PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This being the clinching legal proposition, we are of the considered view that the mere fact of the assessee not even found at the given address at a particular point of time would not itself constitute an incriminating material seized during the course of search so as to validate the assessment herein framed by the learned Assessing Officer. We accordingly find merit in the assessee’s instant and foremost argument to delete the section 68 addition of very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.