INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 153A Section 143(3)

Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153A - Absence of incriminating material/document -

Assessee-company was engaged in the business of share dealing and interest income. A search under section 132 was conducted in the office premises of the assessee on 5-8-2014 and on subsequent dates. During the course of search and seizure operation documents bearing identification marks BRI-5 was found and seized. Assessee contended that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, the addition made by the AO under section 68 by treating the share capital and share premium amount as unexplained cash credit was not justified. The CIT(A) found the submissions of the assessee acceptable and deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68.Held: The CIT(A) in his impugned order categorically held that no incriminating documents papers relevant to the issue on hand were not seized during the course search and seizure operation. Further, the additions made by the AO in the assessment completed under section 153A/143(3) were not based on any incriminating material documents/papers. As rightly argued by the AR the High Court of Calcutta have consistently been held that the additions in the case of search assessment have to be made on the basis of incriminating material. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of DR and AR along with the decisions relied on, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it was justified.

Relied:Sinhgad Tech Edu Society 92017) 397 ITR 344 (SC) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 3941 (SC); CIT v. Kabul Chawla 92015) 380 ITR 573 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3486 (Del-HC) and Pr. CIt v. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 287 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT0 1767 (Del-HC); CIT, Kolkata-III v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (2016) 73 taxmann.com 149 (Calcutta); CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3486 (Del-HC); Mridul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Cent, Cir-XXI, Kolkata in IT(SS)A Nos. 14 & 15/Kol/2015, dated 7-10-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4451 (Kol-Trib); M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT, Cent. Circle-44, Special Bench Mumbai [IT Appeal Nos. 5018 to 5022 & 5059 (Mum) of 2010, dated 6-7-2012] : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2464 (Mum-Trib); ACIT v. M/s. PHPL Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. in IT(SS)A No. 12/Kol/2017, dated 21-8-2018; DCIT v. M/s. B.R. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. in [IT(SS)A No. 11/Kol/2017, dated 26-9-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6368 (Kol-Trib); DCIT v. M/s. Rosemarry Sponge & Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in IT(SS)A No. 75 & 76/Kol/2017, dated 30-11-2018. Distinguished:Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT 229 Taxman 555 and CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493 (De) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 245 (Del-HC), CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3486 (Del-HC), Raj Kumar Arora in (2014) 367 ITR 517 (All) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3949 (All-HC), Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Center v. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 464 (Ker) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1596 (Ker-HC), Smt. Dayawanti Gupta v. CIT (2016) 390 ITR 496 (Del) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4888 (Del-HC), Continental Warehousing Corporation (2016) 235 Taxman 568 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 157 (SC), CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar (2018) 404 ITR 526 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2096 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT