Affirming the Orders of the High Court the Supreme Court held that in a case of search under section\u00a0132\u00a0or requisition under section\u00a0132A, the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction for assessment under section\u00a0153A\u00a0; 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 \u201ctotal income\u201d 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\u00a0132\u00a0or requisition under section\u00a0132A\u00a0of the Act. Court also\u00a0 held\u00a0 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\u00a0147\u00a0or\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged or mentioned under section\u00a0147\u00a0or\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act and those powers are saved.<\/p>\n
Editorial :<\/strong> Decisions of the Delhi, Gujarat and Bombay High Courts in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR\u00a0 573 \u00a0(Delhi)(HC) PCIT\u00a0 v. Saumya Construction P.\u00a0 Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR\u00a0 529 (Guj)(HC) \u00a0PCIT v. Bhadani Financiers P. Ltd (2022) 447 ITR\u00a0 305 (Delhi)(HC)\u00a0 PCIT\u00a0 v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd (2018)408 ITR\u00a0 170 (Delhi)(HC) CIT\u00a0 v. SKS\u00a0 Ispat and Power Ltd (2017)) 398 ITR\u00a0 584 (Bom)(HC)\u00a0 and CIT\u00a0 v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 398 ITR\u00a0 586 (Bom))(HC)\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em>affirmed.<\/p>\n Decision of the Delhi High Court in Dayawanti\u00a0 (SMT.)\u00a0 v. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 496 (Delhi )(HC) \u00a0affirmed. PCIT v. Dipak Jashvantlal Panchal (2017) 397 ITR 153(Guj)(HC) \u00a0 CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (2015)\u00a0 374 ITR 645 (Bom)(HC) \u00a0 PCIT v. Delhi International Arport Pvt. Ltd.(2022) 443 ITR 382 (Karn)(HC)) PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M\/S. Ferns \u201cN\u201d Petals (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi)(HC), Jami Nirmala (Smt.) v. PCIT (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Orissa )(HC) \u00a0 CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd(2016) 388 ITR 574 (Cal )(HC)\u00a0 S. M. Kamal Pasha v. Dy.CIT\u00a0(2023) 454 ITR 157 (Karn)(HC) PCIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 10 TMI 1022 (Guj) (HC)\u00a0 PCIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (2016)\u00a0 8 TMI 1131 (Cal)(HC)\u00a0 PCIT v. Daksha Jain Sirohi\u00a0 (SMT) (2019)\u00a0 8 TMI 474 (Raj)(HC)\u00a0 and Smrutisudha Nayak\u00a0 (SMT.)\u00a0\u00a0 v. UOI\u00a0 (2021)439 ITR 193 (Orissa )(HC) \u00a0\u00a0impliedly approved. PCIT v. Mehndipur Balaji (2022) 447 ITR 517 (All)(HC) \u00a0<\/em>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)\u00a0affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-a7Y","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38935,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38934\/revisions\/38935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}