Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) Date of filing of 30.09.2015 31/08/2015 31.08.2015 return u/s 139(1) of the Act
iii) Section of Original 143(1) 143(1) 143(1) Assessment
iv) Date of order 1.12.2015 20.10.2015 27.05.2016

17. As per the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act, the assessment made prior to search had not abated, therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 54 F of the Act is beyond the scope of the assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. As observed earlier, the A.O. has not referred any of the documents found during the course of search while making the impugned disallowance and by relying on the documents procured during the assessment and the statements recorded during the course of search the A.O., framed the assessment. Since, the disallowance made u/s 54F of the Act is dehors any incriminating material found during the course of search, by applying the well settled principal of law laid down by the Hon'ble C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 DCIT Vs. HarpreetKochar Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), we find merit in the contentions raised by the Assessee under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Thus, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the A.O. is beyond jurisdiction and cannot sustain in the eyes of law, accordingly the additions are deserves to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.