Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is undisputed that the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was already concluded vide order dated 16/12/2016 in the case of the assessee. Thus, on the date of search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, i.e. 20/08/2019, no assessment for the year under consideration was pending and therefore the same was not abated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act. From the perusal of the order passed under section 153A of the Act, we find that the AO made three additions/disallowances. We find that two additions/disallowances were made on account of unverified purchases on the basis of verification of data available on the ITBA/ITD database. While the third addition was made on the basis of the perusal of details regarding the delayed payment of employees' contributions to the Provident Fund and ESIC. Therefore, it is discernible that none of these additions are based on the material found during the course of the search in the case of the assessee, its associated concerns, directors, and related persons. We find that even in its remand report, the AO did not highlight the existence of any incriminating Page | 5 M/s. Capacit'e Infraprojects Ltd.

7. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the disallowance made on account of employee's contribution to welfare funds beyond the due date without considering the fact that the Apex Court in the latest judgement in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has decided this issue in favour of the Revenue."

14. In the assessment year 2015-16 also we find that on the date of the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on 20/08/2019, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was already completed on 16/08/2017. Therefore, no assessment for this year was pending on the date of search and thus the same is also not abated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act. We further find that vide order dated 27/07/2021 passed under section 153A of the Act the additions made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search rather the same are either based on pre-search/post-survey enquiries, perusal of information available on ITBA/ITD database or information already available on record in terms of delayed payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund/ ESIC. Further, it is pertinent to note that the remand report furnished by the AO, as sought during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), is common for all the assessment years under consideration, which as noted above does not highlight the existence of any incriminating material Page | 9 M/s. Capacit'e Infraprojects Ltd.