PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

397 ITR 82High Court2017#66 most cited

What is PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

786

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure India · Section 132(4) · incriminating material · retracted statement · search assessment · addition without evidence · evidentiary value of statement · statement under search

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 2872017 SCC OnLine DEL 9591

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 69ASection 153CSection 148

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 149(1)(c)section 158bb(1)section 4(2)section 158basection 153(a)section 158bbsection 201(3)statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 150

Judgments citing PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…hich according to him is abnormal… The Ld. A.O. in assessment proceedings put much stress on the statement recorded in course of search from assessee to support said additions made in assessment of assessee. In case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even statement recorded in course of search u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material and unless there is incriminating material for each of assessment years in which addition are made the A.O. could not proceed u/s 153A. Thus the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. u/s 15…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…hich according to him is abnormal… The Ld. A.O. in assessment proceedings put much stress on the statement recorded in course of search from assessee to support said additions made in assessment of assessee. In case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even statement recorded in course of search u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material and unless there is incriminating material for each of assessment years in which addition are made the A.O. could not proceed u/s 153A. Thus the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. u/s 15…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…hich according to him is abnormal… The Ld. A.O. in assessment proceedings put much stress on the statement recorded in course of search from assessee to support said additions made in assessment of assessee. In case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even statement recorded in course of search u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material and unless there is incriminating material for each of assessment years in which addition are made the A.O. could not proceed u/s 153A. Thus the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. u/s 15…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…hich according to him is abnormal… The Ld. A.O. in assessment proceedings put much stress on the statement recorded in course of search from assessee to support said additions made in assessment of assessee. In case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even statement recorded in course of search u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material and unless there is incriminating material for each of assessment years in which addition are made the A.O. could not proceed u/s 153A. Thus the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. u/s 15…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…hich according to him is abnormal… The Ld. A.O. in assessment proceedings put much stress on the statement recorded in course of search from assessee to support said additions made in assessment of assessee. In case of Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that even statement recorded in course of search u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material and unless there is incriminating material for each of assessment years in which addition are made the A.O. could not proceed u/s 153A. Thus the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. A.O. u/s 15…

M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…s examine Mr. Vipul Bhatt was provided and the onus to ensure presence of deponent whose statement was relied by AO was on him which cannot be shifted to the assessee as held by Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd, 397 ITR 82. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.51,47,530/- for the A.Y.2012-13. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…l, the proceedings under section 153A are bad in law. In relation to the above, reliance is placed on the following rulings: a. Ruling of the Karnataka HC in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108); b. Delhi HC in Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); c. Delhi HC in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573). Being so, the assessment framed thereafter u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) is bad in law to be quashed. 8.1 The ld. AR further submitted that a search and seizure action was conducted on the premises of M/s SPR Developers Private Limited on 08.12.2011 and certain sale deeds pertaining to lands sold by t…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…l, the proceedings under section 153A are bad in law. In relation to the above, reliance is placed on the following rulings: a. Ruling of the Karnataka HC in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108); b. Delhi HC in Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); c. Delhi HC in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573). Being so, the assessment framed thereafter u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) is bad in law to be quashed. 8.1 The ld. AR further submitted that a search and seizure action was conducted on the premises of M/s SPR Developers Private Limited on 08.12.2011 and certain sale deeds pertaining to lands sold by t…

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Anoop Thatai, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6362/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6361/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6360/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6359/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6358/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6356/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5721/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

Anoop Thatai, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5719/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

…s pertaining to the above AYs does not satisfy the requirement of law that there must be incriminating material. 15.2 Moreover, it has been held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harjeev Agrawal 290 ITR 263 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure P Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded at the time of search cannot be said to be constituting incriminating material found as a result of search even though we have held hereinabove that there is even nothing in the statements which can be termed as incriminating material and more so qua the issue involved in the present appeals. 16. Therefore, having r…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Luxman Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…u/s 68 of the I.T. Act is not based on any incriminating material and is based on statements recorded during search u/s 132(4) and post- search enquiries. 38. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. reported in 397 ITR 82 has held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under :- "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…alone basis and without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operation, empowers the AO to frame the block assessment:- a) PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), 432 ITR 384 (Del); b) CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del); c) CIT vs. Harjeev Agarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Del); d) M.S. Aggarwal vs. CIT, 406 ITR 609 (Del); e) Smt. Shivali Mahajan vs. ACIT, ITA No.5585/Del/2015, order dated 19th March, 2019 for AY 2006-07 Delhi ITAT). f) M/s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.3332/Del/2017, order dated 29.12.2017 (Delhi ITAT). 26 22. The ld. Counsel for the…