PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Meroform India Pvt. Ltd.

1. For the reasons explained in the applications, the delay in re-fihng t,e appealsiscondoned.The applications are allowed. TTA 658/2019.6^9/2019.660/2019.6617201Q,fifil/2019.664/2019 2.;TheseappealsbytheRevenueareagainstcommonimpugnedorderdated 3L' July, 2018 passed in ITR Nos. 4630, 4631, 4632, 4633, 4634, ' © 4635/Del/2014 for Assessment Years(AYs)2006-07, 2007-08,2008-09, 2009-10,2010-11 and 2011-12.

3. The comiiion question oflaw that has been urged bythe Revenue in all these appeals concernsthe correctness oftheimpugned orderoftheIncome Tax Appellate.Tribunal(TTAT')upholding the order ofCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)['CIT(A)']thatthere was no incriminating material recovered against the Assessee during the eourse-ofthe search warranting re-op?ning ofassessments and making the additions under Section 153A of theIncome Tax Act,1961('the Act').

4. The ITAT has noticed that search and seizure was conducted in the business premises ofthe Assessee on 19^''October,2010 and notices under Section 153A ofthe Actwereissued on27/^September,2012.In each ofthe above AssessmentYearsfor which notices wereissued,asfar as AYs2006- 07 to 2008-09 were concerned,returns had been filed on the due date and even assessmenthadbeencompleted under Section143(3)ofthe Actmuch before the date ofthe search.The learned CIT(A)agreed with the Assessee thatthejudgmentofthis CourtinCITy.KabulChawla(2016)380ITR573 would apply,particularly since the Revenue was not able to dispute that-no incriminating material was found qua the additions made for.the AYs in question.

5. Inthe impugned order,theITATfollowed thejudgmentofthis Courtin. CITV.KabulChawla(Supra)andforthe AYs 2006-2007to 2008-2009,it held thatthe additions were beyond the scope ofassessment under Section 153,A of-the Act.

6. TheITATthen proceededto discussthe additionsfortheremaining AYs i.e. 2009-2010,2010-2011 and 2011-2012.As regards two ofthe AYs i.e. 2010-2011 and201.1-2012,itfoundthattheexperisesshownbythe Ass.essee inits.books ofaccounts wereincurred duringthenormalcourse ofbusiness. Consequently,these additions were rightly held to have been deleted bythe CIT(A).

7. Learned Counselfor the Revenue has drawn the attention ofthe Courtto a statement recorded during a course ofa suryey made under Sectioin 133A ofthe Act in the case of one M/s Nitin Enterprises by one ofits partners,- The.statement adverted to the said Nitin Enterprises being engaged in the practice ofissuing bogus bills to various parties. The statement was to the 0 effect thatthe Assessee had issued cheques againstbogus bills for which cash had been later paid to the Assessee.

8. TheITAThasinthe impugned ordertakennote ofthefactthatbeforethe AO;the Assessee produced various docunients which showed thatthere was litigation between the Assessee and M/^itinEnterprises which ended in a settlement.These documents were before the AO who took no adverse view thereof. The ITAT noted that the statement had been recorded behind the; Assessee's back and.the person making the statement was not subjected to cross-examination. In the circumstances, the ITAT concurred-with the detailedfindingsrendered bythe CIT(A)onthisissue..

9. A similar viewwastakenbytheITATinrespectofpurchasesniadefrom. one M/s Kiran Furnitures. The ITAT has.in the impugned order examined the documents and evidence afresh and has given detailed reasonsinsupport ofits concurrence -with view expressed by the CIT(A).The additions made by the AO for AY 2011-2012, which have been deleted by the CIT(A),pressed by the CIT(A)have been findings concurring with the views ex' rendered.

10 In view ofthe concurrent findings ofboth the CXT(A)and ITAT.on facts,thecourtfindsthatmthepresentcases,nosubstantialquestionoflaw arisesfromtheimpugnedcommonorderoftheITAT.

11. Theseappealsare accordinglydismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR,J. © JULY 22,2019 T^^OTANTSINGH,