Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

395 ITR 526High Court2017#35 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia authority for?

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

1,226

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

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia · 395 ITR 526 · search assessment · Section 153A · Section 132(4) · incriminating material · retracted statement · completed assessments · additions without incriminating evidence · Kabul Chawla principle

Also reported as

82 Taxmann.com 287248 Taxmann 384157 DTR 20

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangrai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…er, the CIT(A) after going through the seized material or incriminating material noted that none of the material relates to these three assessment years and relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529, PCIT vs. Devangi Alia Rupa, reported in 2017-TIOL-319-HC- AHM-IT, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 385 ITR 346, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. S…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…rch and no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (supra) and Principal CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:- ….. 10. In this view of the matter there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. In the aforesaid facts, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 20. The Ld AR also brought to our notice the decision of the Tribunal in th…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1645/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

…of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526(Delhi), order dated 25.05.2017 held as under: "58. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court discussed the decision in Filatex India Ltd. (supra) as well as the above two decisions and observed as under: "31. What distinguishes the decisions both in CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra), and Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (supra) in their application to t…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1644/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

…of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526(Delhi), order dated 25.05.2017 held as under: "58. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court discussed the decision in Filatex India Ltd. (supra) as well as the above two decisions and observed as under: "31. What distinguishes the decisions both in CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra), and Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (supra) in their application to t…