| COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
| CORAM: | G. D. Agrawal (VP), Kuldip Singh (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 153A |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | incriminating material, Search assessment |
| COUNSEL: | Prakash Chand Yadav |
| DATE: | June 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | July 14, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2006-07, 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| An assessment made u/s 153A only on the basis of pre-search enquiries and because the parties did not appear in response to s. 133(6) summons is not valid if no incriminating material was found in search. A s. 143(1) Intimation is deemed to be a completed assessment if no notice u/s 143 (2) has been issued prior to the date of search. The ratio of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 173 (Del) has to be understood by perusing the judgment in entirety and not by picking up the favourable sentences and by ignoring the unfavourable ones | |
We are of the considered view that completed assessment interfered with by the AO u/s 153A and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons:-
(i) that in the instant case, undisputedly the AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition as has specifically been recorded in para 6 of the assessment order that, “Pre search enquiries revealed that M/s Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., the flagship company involved in the real estate business of the S.K. Jaipuria group is indulged in inflating the cost of the project by debiting bogus expenses by raising bills from the non-existing parties or the entry providers.”
(ii) that the ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 173 (Del.) is required to be extracted by perusing the judgment in entirety and not by picking up the favourable sentences and by ignoring the unfavourable one. Highlighted portion of para 37 (iv), (v), (vi) & (vii) of Kabul Chawla (supra) is crux of the issue involved which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii) that the ratio of the judgment Kabul Chawla (supra) is that in all circumstances, completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO u/s 153A only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the course of search;
(iv) that not only this, the addition in this case has been made by the AO u/s 153A on the sole ground that assessee has failed to produce the parties with whom the assessee company has transacted during the year under assessment who have failed to turn up despite the issue of notice u/s 133 (6) of the Act;
(v) that the contention of the ld. DR that the assessment qua the AY 2006-07 was pending as on date of search as mere issuances of acknowledgement by the ministerial staff does not imply that assessment has been completed, is not tenable in the face of undisputed fact that when within the prescribed period, no notice u/s 143 (2) has been issued prior to the date of search, assessment is deemed to be completed;
(vi) that there is not an iota of material with the AO to initiate proceedings u/s 153A what to talk of incriminating seized material;
(vii) that the ld. CIT (A) affirmed the assessment order by relying upon the decisions relied upon by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as Filatex India Ltd. vs. CIT-IV – (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 465 (Delhi) which has been distinguished in the Kabul Chawla (supra) on the ground that in the said case, there was some material unearthed during the search whereas in the instant case there is admittedly no incriminating material unearthed during the search to proceed u/s 153A.
Recent Comments