Full Text
JUDGMENT
3 ITA No. 470/2017 + PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-1 Appellant Through; Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue.
VERSUS
M/S BIHARIJIISPAT UDYOG LIMITED, Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain and Mr.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. WITH
4. ITA No. 472/2017. + PIUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-1 Appellant Through: Mr. ZohebHossain, SeniorStanding Counsel for Revenue.
VERSUS
M/S BIHARIJI ISPAT UDYOG LIMITED Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain and Mr.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 17.08.2017
1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 30^^^ December, 2016 passed bytheIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') ITA 470/2017 & 472/2017 Page I of[2] 2017:DHC:8931-DB •r inITA No. 418/Del/2014 and the cross objections inC.O. No. 220/Del/2014 Assessment Year ('AY') 2007-08.
2. The question urged in these appeals is whether the ITAT was correct in law in quashing the assessment order under Section 153Aof the Act by holding that scope ofadditions under this section is limited to incriminating documents seized during search following the decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. KabulChawla [2016] 380ITR 573 (Del).
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that the Revenue has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the above decision but no stay thereof has been granted.
4. The Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order ofthe ITAT particularly since it notes that the AO, in the remand report, confirmed that "the issue on which addition has been made is not based on any material seized in the search".
5. No substantial question of law arises fi-om the impugned order ofthe ITAT. These appeals areaccordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 17, 2017