Dy. CIT v. Bakshiram Uderam Holdings P. Ltd 2023)105 ITR 220 (Kol)(Trib) Dy.CIT v. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. (2023)105 ITR 220 (Kol)(Trib) Dy.CIT v. Narsingh Ispat Udyog P. Ltd. (2023)105 ITR 220 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cash credits-Return processed under section 143(1)-Share application money-Information available before the date of search-No incriminating material-Assessment is bad in law-Statement recorded by Investigation Agencies-Opportunity of cross examination. is not given-Assessments not sustainable-Share application moneys-Merger-Amalgamation-No inquiry could be made in hands of assessees Qua antecedents of merged companies-Additions are not sustainable. [S. 68, 143(1), 143(2)]

Held that return  was processed under section 143(1). No incriminating material was found. Addition id bad in law.   As regards statement recorded by Investigation Agencies, opportunity of cross examination is not given, addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement.   Assessments not sustainable-Share application moneys.  Followed  PCIT v.. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2016) 38 GSTR 117 (SC). Tribunal held that  two of the assessee-companies had merged and the National Company Law Tribunal had amalgamated all these companies with effect from April 1, 2017. The assessee has demonstrated that in the previous year relevant to the AY. 2018-19 neither assessee had raised any share capital money. Whatever action has done in the past by their share applicants could not be investigated in the hands of the assessee after amalgamation. Therefore, in view of the National Company Law Tribunal’s decision on the amalgamation petition, no inquiry could be made in the hands of both these assessees qua the antecedents of the merged companies. The additions were not sustainable.(AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15, 2018-19)