Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.

Syed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.355/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Syed Zeeshanuddin Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Bqgps0128A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Validity Of Assessment U/S 153A In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.12,02,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Expenditure By Applying The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The I.T. Act.

…in the above decision while agreeing with the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Saumya Construction (2016) 387 ITR 529 and various other decisions concluded that: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; i) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; ii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/comple…