Home › Income-Tax Act › PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212/ 293 Taxman 141/ 332 CTR 385/ 225 DTR 105 (SC) Editorial : Refer case laws in the editorial. Editorial : PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 294 Taxman 70/ 332 CTR 729/ 225 DTR 497 (SC), Supreme Court refused to entertain Misc, application filed by Revenue seeking clarification order passed and directed Revenue to file an appropriate review application.

PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212/ 293 Taxman 141/ 332 CTR 385/ 225 DTR 105 (SC) Editorial : Refer case laws in the editorial. Editorial : PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 294 Taxman 70/ 332 CTR 729/ 225 DTR 497 (SC), Supreme Court refused to entertain Misc, application filed by Revenue seeking clarification order passed and directed Revenue to file an appropriate review application.

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Total income-Completed Assessments remain unabated-No addition permissible for such years in absence of incriminating material having been found in search-Completed or unabated assessments can be reopened under Section 147 or 148 of the Act. [S. 2(45), 131, 132, 132A, 143(1), 143(3), 147, 148,285BA]

Affirming the Orders of the High Court the Supreme Court held that in a case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction for assessment under section 153A ; all pending assessments or reassessments shall stand abated. In case any incriminating material is found or unearthed, even in case of unabated or completed assessments, the Assessing Officer would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the “total income” taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the Assessing Officer including the income declared in the returns; and in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court also  held  that the High Court was right in affirming the order of the Tribunal upholding the addition made on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search. However, completed or unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147 or 148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged or mentioned under section 147 or 148 of the Act and those powers are saved.

Editorial : Decisions of the Delhi, Gujarat and Bombay High Courts in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR  573  (Delhi)(HC) PCIT  v. Saumya Construction P.  Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR  529 (Guj)(HC)  PCIT v. Bhadani Financiers P. Ltd (2022) 447 ITR  305 (Delhi)(HC)  PCIT  v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd (2018)408 ITR  170 (Delhi)(HC) CIT  v. SKS  Ispat and Power Ltd (2017)) 398 ITR  584 (Bom)(HC)  and CIT  v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 398 ITR  586 (Bom))(HC)   affirmed.

Decision of the Delhi High Court in Dayawanti  (SMT.)  v. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 496 (Delhi )(HC)  affirmed. PCIT v. Dipak Jashvantlal Panchal (2017) 397 ITR 153(Guj)(HC)   CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (2015)  374 ITR 645 (Bom)(HC)   PCIT v. Delhi International Arport Pvt. Ltd.(2022) 443 ITR 382 (Karn)(HC)) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/S. Ferns “N” Petals (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi)(HC), Jami Nirmala (Smt.) v. PCIT (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Orissa )(HC)   CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd(2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal )(HC)  S. M. Kamal Pasha v. Dy.CIT (2023) 454 ITR 157 (Karn)(HC) PCIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 10 TMI 1022 (Guj) (HC)  PCIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (2016)  8 TMI 1131 (Cal)(HC)  PCIT v. Daksha Jain Sirohi  (SMT) (2019)  8 TMI 474 (Raj)(HC)  and Smrutisudha Nayak  (SMT.)   v. UOI  (2021)439 ITR 193 (Orissa )(HC)   impliedly approved. PCIT v. Mehndipur Balaji (2022) 447 ITR 517 (All)(HC)  impliedly disapproved. Decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson (I. T. A. No. 270 of 2014 dated September 6, 2016) affirmed.