ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI v. M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Delhi High Court · 11 Sep 2023 · 2023:DHC:6947-DB

Rajiv Shakdher; Girish Kathpalia

ITA 62/2021

2023:DHC:6947-DB

tax appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld that reassessment under Section 153A cannot be initiated without incriminating material found during search in cases of completed assessments, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

Full Text

ITA 62/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.09.2023

ITA 62/2021
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Shailendera Singh, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Dacchita Shahi, Standing Counsel.

VERSUS

M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Bhupinderjeet Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
CM Appl.8570/2021 [Application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the appeal]

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 113 days.

3. Mr Bhupinderjeet Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee does not oppose the prayer made in the application.

4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.

5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.

7. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 20.04.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].

8. The record shows that the Assessing Officer (AO) added to the taxable income of the respondent/assessee Rs.3,50,00,000/- albeit, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], as according to him said amount represented undisclosed income. 8.[1] The addition was made pursuant to a search and seizure operation, which took place at the respondent/assessee’s premises on 12.01.2012 and 11.09.2013.

9. The record also shows that notices under Section 153A of the Act were issued on 08.07.2013 and 25.11.2014.

10. The record further discloses that on 23.03.2016, the assessment qua aforementioned AY under Section 153A was completed vis-à-vis the respondent/assessee.

11. The assessed income of the respondent/assessee, after making an addition of Rs.3,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, was pegged at Rs.7,89,74,840/-.

12. Prior to the aforementioned assessment, the scrutiny assessment, was completed on 23.12.2010. The assessment order, as indicated above, was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

13. Given this position, the Tribunal concluded that since no incriminating material was found, the reassessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act could not have been triggered without the discovery of such material qua the respondent/assessee. This aspect is captured, inter alia, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Tribunal’s order. For the sake of convenience, the same are extracted hereafter:

“9. From the above, it can be concluded that, once a search takes place u/s 132 of the Act, the assessee is obliged to file returns for the six assessment years immediately proceeding the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the search took place. Insofar as the completed assessment as on the date of the search are concerned, the same are to be repeated as increased by additions, only if, based on incriminating material found during the course of search. In other words, if no incriminating material is found during the course of search, then, the amount of total income determined under the earlier completed assessments is to be adopted in fresh assessments u/s 153A without making any further addition. 10. Juxtaposing these principles to the facts of the instant case, we find that the case of the assessee doesn't fall under the category of abated assessment. It falls under the category of completed assessments. In the completed assessment, it is an admitted position that if no incriminating material was found during the search, no addition is called for. In the instant case too, no incriminating material was found with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer.” [Emphasis is ours]

14. In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken the correct view. Sans the incriminating material, no addition could have been made by the AO with regard to the AY in issue, as it was a case of completed assessment.

3,991 characters total

14.1. This issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573. This judgment has received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell, (2023) SCC Online SC 481.

15. Given the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

16. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI v. M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation