SANGEETA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2654/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 March 2023AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions did not emanate from documents seized during the search, and in light of the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, no additions could be made. Therefore, the impugned additions were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an assessment order passed under Section 153A following a search and seizure operation. Additions were made for undisclosed income invested in property and unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether additions can be made in a Section 153A assessment if no incriminating material is found during the search operation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Ld. Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Richa Khoda, Ld. CIT/DR
Hearing: 28.03.2023

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.01.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

In the instant case, based on a search and seizure operation conducted on 09.05.2012, an assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on dated 27.02.2015, whereby the additions of Rs.2,47,240/- and Rs.1,70,000/- respectively on account of undisclosed income invested in purchase of property and unexplained cash deposits in Assessee’s bank account, have been made. The ld. Commissioner affirmed the said addition by dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee.

3.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we observe that in the instant case, admittedly, the impugned additions made by the ld. Authorities below does not emanate from the documents seized during the course of search and seizure operation. The mandate of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 is very much clear that if no incriminating material unearthed during the search, then no addition can be made to the income already assessed. The said dictum of the Hon’ble High Court stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. Joint CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2018) Taxmann.com 411 (SC) in SLP (C) Dairy No. 18121/2018 dated 2nd July, 2018, by dismissing the SLP filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Joint CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi High Court), wherein the same dictum was laid down by the Hon’ble Court as in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Even the impugned order involved herein, was also considered in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and similar addition has been deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal by passing Order dated 16-09- 2021 in by taking refuge of Kabul Chawla case (Supra). Consequently, the impugned additions are not sustainable, hence we are inclined to delete the same by setting aside the impugned order.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023

More judgments on Section 153A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →