Agreement to Sell Creates No Right In Property: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Allowing Vendees To Be Impleaded In Partition Suit Uploading Notice on E-Portal Is Not Service in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Reassessment for Breach of Section 148 Notice Requirements She Had Nothing to Gain, No Reason to Lie: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction of Husband and Son Solely on Dying Declarations of Burnt Woman Delay in Forwarding Material under Section 19(2) Not Fatal When Grounds of Arrest Are Communicated Immediately: Calcutta High Court Upholds ED Arrest in ₹6210 Crore PMLA Case Disqualification Proceedings Are Not Criminal Trials — Speaker Applied a Flawed Yardstick of ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Speaker’s Order in Defection Case Against AITC-Backed MLA Sales Tax | Furnace Oil Cannot Be Treated As 'Plant and Machinery' Merely Because It Powers the Boiler: Bombay High Court 28 Years of Service Can’t Be Labelled Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Regularization of Daily Wage Workers in Municipal Water Supply Clause Creating Perpetual Tenancy Is Void Without Registration – Allahabad High Court Rejects Tenant’s Defense Based On Unregistered Rent Deed Delay of Two Years in Lodging FIR Remains Unexplained — No Justification for Further Custody: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail Dismissal of Cheque Bounce Complaint for Default is Acquittal — Victim Can Appeal Without Seeking Leave: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Victim Is Last Seen With Accused and Dies Soon After, Burden Shifts on Accused Under Section 106 Evidence Act and Section 29 POCSO: Patna High Court Registered Sale Agreement Can Be a Mask for Loan Security, Not a Binding Promise of Sale: Madras High Court Declares Oral Evidence Admissible to Expose Real Intention Personal Hearing Must Be Read Into Every Disciplinary Proceeding, Even If Rules Are Silent: Kerala High Court Cheating Allegations Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because Civil Suits Are Pending: Telangana High Court Cyber Fraud Cannot Be Treated as a Mere Private Dispute Resolved by Money: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Despite Compromise Presumption Under Section 113-B Cannot Arise Without Proof of Dowry Harassment Soon Before Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Conviction Cannot Rest on Recovery Alone from Shared Space: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused of Murder Expert Opinion Is Weak Evidence – Dying Declaration Without Corroboration Cannot Convict: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Order VIII Rule 1 Is Directory in Non-Commercial Suits—Striking Off Defence Without Considering Section 8 Arbitration Application Not Sustainable: Punjab and Haryana High Court Title Perfected Under Tenancy Act Cannot Be Reopened by Civil Court Without Proof of Fraud: Bombay High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Harassment Alone Isn’t Enough — There Must Be a Direct and Proximate Act That Drives Suicide: Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Section 306 IPC Case Police Report Is Not a Valid Complaint under Section 195 CrPC; Cognizance for Section 188 IPC Offence Without Public Servant’s Complaint Is Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court Assessee Cannot Be Asked To Prove 'Source of Source' For Pre-Amendment Loans: Delhi High Court Affirms ITAT Deletion of ₹10 Cr Addition Under Section 68 Statutory Remedies Cannot Be Bypassed by Filing a Writ Petition Years Later: Supreme Court Dismisses Delayed Challenge to Revenue Auction

Additions Without Incriminating Material in Section 153A Proceedings Cannot Survive – ITAT Delhi

02 December 2024 6:45 PM

By: sayum


Tribunal quashes additions made under Section 68 and Section 14A, emphasizing the absence of incriminating evidence from search operations. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi has ruled in favor of KDP Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the Revenue's appeals and upholding the cross-objections raised by the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of incriminating material for making additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when assessments are not pending. This landmark judgment, pronounced by a bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, underscores the legal boundaries of tax assessments following search and seizure operations.

KDP Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., engaged in real estate development, had filed its returns of income for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on September 26, 2014, at the premises of the assessee and other group entities. Consequently, proceedings under Section 153A were initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of INR 11.17 crores and INR 30.15 crores for the respective assessment years, treating the share application money and premium as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. An additional disallowance of INR 17,170 under Section 14A was made for the assessment year 2011-12. These additions were contested by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the additions under Section 68 but upheld the disallowance under Section 14A.

The primary contention of the assessee was the invalidity of the proceedings initiated under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The tribunal observed that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material seized during the search operations. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., which stated that in the case of unabated assessments, no additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material.

The tribunal meticulously examined the assessment orders and noted that the AO had not referred to any incriminating material or statements recorded during the search operations. Instead, the additions were based on inquiries conducted during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal held that such additions could not be sustained in the absence of any incriminating material, aligning with the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court.

The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling: "In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act."

The ITAT's decision to quash the additions under Sections 68 and 14A emphasizes the necessity of incriminating material for initiating proceedings under Section 153A, thereby reinforcing the legal framework for tax assessments following search operations. This judgment sets a significant precedent for future cases involving similar issues, ensuring adherence to established legal principles in tax administration.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2024

Latest Legal News