Section 153A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 153A is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 18,957 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 153A

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Judgments on Section 153A

Smt. Shobha Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1764/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Shobha Sekhari, Vs Acit, 448-451, Chinmin Farms, Central Circle-15, Village Satbari, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps1222M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- Made By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issued Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 11.11.2010 In Tinna Group Of Cases Including The Assessee. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,28,60,948/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.5,38,413/-. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Capital Gain Of Rs.2,23,03,125/- On Transfer Of A Land Measuring 39 Bighas Situated At Village Rojka Gujjar Distt. Sohna (Haryana). While Doing So, The Ao Rejected The Claim Of This Land As Agricultural Land On Which An Amount Of Rs.29,410/- Was Shown As Agricultural Income. The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A). The Ao, Thereafter, Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 983/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-7827-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1140/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashish K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), Ajmera House, 4Th Floor R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम Pathakwadi, L.T.Marg Old Cgo Building, / Vs. Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-9075-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1113/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Minal M. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adepa-9661-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 539/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Avani J. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Addpa-9331-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Dy CIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y. Patil International Academy, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 06/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 07/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 08/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 09/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 10/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Cen Cir. 7(1) Dr. D. Y. Patil International Academy R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Knowledge City Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Charholi Bk, Via Lohegaon Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pune-412 105. स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaatd-9542-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 05/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Cen Cir. 7(1) Dr. D. Y. Patil Educational R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor Enterprises Charitable Trust बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, B-502, Blue Hills Society Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pune Nagar Road, Yerawada, Pune-411 006 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabtd-3063-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1966/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 8. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1967/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 9. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1968/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Section 143(3)

DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur, Central Circle-2 vs. M/S. Vikas Jewellers 331-332 Govindram Building Mi Road, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 789/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 789/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Vikas Jewellers, Vs. Income Tax, 331-332, Govindram Building, Central Circle-2, Mi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aakfv 6383 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 27/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting Of Rs. 2,12,54,055/- On Account Of Excess Stock Found During The Search Without Appreciating The Facts That One Of The Partner Of The Firm Categorically Admitted The Excess Stock Of Rs. 5,64,20,450/- In The Statements Recorded During The Search U/S 132(4) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)