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 367,837 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

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(1)statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 132(1)section 153a(1)section 153bpanchnamasection 132asearch assessmentblock periodsection 158bsection 158

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 431/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 430/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 429/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

Sh. Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 427/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…result of search relevant to assessment years under appeals. In support of his contention he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and Pr. CIT vs., Meeta Gut Gutia reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del.) in which the Departmental SLP have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC). He has also referred to panchanama executed in the case of assessee which did not find mention any incriminating material relevant to any assessment years under appeals which could be the basis for making any addition. He has…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6068/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.6067 & 6068/DEL/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Vision Town Planners Income Tax, Central Pvt. Ltd., Circle-19, Noida. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCV9600Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita singh, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 22 04 2021 Date of pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impug…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6067/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.6067 & 6068/DEL/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of vs. M/s. Vision Town Planners Income Tax, Central Pvt. Ltd., Circle-19, Noida. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCV9600Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Sunita singh, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA Date of hearing: 22 04 2021 Date of pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impug…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal i…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal i…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal i…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal i…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…said decisions, since the additions are not with reference to any incriminating material, the same would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 to counter assessee‟s submissions. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal i…

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…search), has been laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in a plethora of cases. Some of which are- (a) CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla , 381 ITR 570 (Delhi) (b) Pr. CIT Vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd. , 380 ITR 571 (Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) I am bound by law as laid down by my jurisdictional High Court as elaborated above. As such, I hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer, not being based upon any seized material or incriminating material found during the course of search, is not sustainable.” 10 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.7 Re…

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4223/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…search), has been laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in a plethora of cases. Some of which are- (a) CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla , 381 ITR 570 (Delhi) (b) Pr. CIT Vs. Kurele Papers Mills Pvt. Ltd. , 380 ITR 571 (Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) I am bound by law as laid down by my jurisdictional High Court as elaborated above. As such, I hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer, not being based upon any seized material or incriminating material found during the course of search, is not sustainable.” 10 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.7 Re…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon vs. Dlf Universal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

ITA 5963/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learnedFor Respondent: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in observing that the proceeding
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153Section 153A

…settled principle of law that in terms of decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), Chintels India Ltd vs. DCIT, 397 ITR 416 (Del), PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Del), PCIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 (Del), Ld. PCIT vs. Ms Lata Jain, 384 ITR 543 (Del), the assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate and the total income for such assessment years will have to be computed by the Assessing Officers as a fresh exercise; and that although Section 153A of the Act does not say that additions should be strictly made on…

Abhishek Agarwal, U S Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 29/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the scope of section 153A, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of: Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) 8. On merits, he submitted that the assessee has given the explanation before the AO alongwith the confirmation and the statement of account that the amounts have been received towards advance as per the agreement to sale for the properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the ma…

Saurabh Agarwal, U S Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 28/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the scope of section 153A, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of: Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) 8. On merits, he submitted that the assessee has given the explanation before the AO alongwith the confirmation and the statement of account that the amounts have been received towards advance as per the agreement to sale for the properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the ma…

Shiv Kumar Agarwal, U S Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 27/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the scope of section 153A, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of: Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) 8. On merits, he submitted that the assessee has given the explanation before the AO alongwith the confirmation and the statement of account that the amounts have been received towards advance as per the agreement to sale for the properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the ma…

Rukman Agarwal, U S Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chand Upadhyay
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the scope of section 153A, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. He strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of: Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 (Delhi) 8. On merits, he submitted that the assessee has given the explanation before the AO alongwith the confirmation and the statement of account that the amounts have been received towards advance as per the agreement to sale for the properties; and then again further evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT (A) under rule 46A. Despite the ma…