Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.43 seconds)Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Delay In Filing The Appeal) Pcit ... vs Anand Kumar Jain (Huf) on 15 February, 2021
16. We had carefully perused the assessment order and the order
of the CIT(A), we are unable to discern reasons for making addition
in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. From the
case setup by the AO, it would reveal that the AO had proceeded
with the making of the additions invoking jurisdiction u/s. 153A
9
ITA 178 to 182 & CO No. 4/Coch/2024
Arun Raj.Pillai
based on the statements given by Mr. M.K. Rajendran Pillai u/s
132(4) during the course of search and seizure operations in his
hands that all the investments made in hands of the family members
and the business concerns were made out of his unaccounted
income. The outcome of the income tax proceedings in the case of
Mr. M.K. Rajendran Pillai are discussed supra. The assessment
order is totally silent as to what is the evidence found as a result of
search and seizure action in the hands of the respondent assessee
before us nor made any referenced to the statement recorded from
the assessee company u/s. 132(4) of the Act in the course of search
and seizure action in the hands of the assessee. Thus, it is crystal
clear that except the statement made by Mr. Rajendran Pillai there is
no iota of evidence found as result of search and seizure in the hands
of the assessee leading to the impugned addition. Thus, the basis of
the impugned assessment is the statement given by Mr. Rajendran
Pillai in the course of search and seizure operations in his hands u/s.
153A. Therefore, the question that is required to be determined is
whether the statement given by third party constitutes an
incriminating material as envisaged u/s. 153A of the Act. The issue
stands settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain 432 ITR 384(Delhi) and PCIT
vs. Manoj Hora 402 ITR 175 (Delhi) and in the case of PCIT v.
Kunvarji Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 432 ITR 180 (Guj). The
10
ITA 178 to 182 & CO No. 4/Coch/2024
Arun Raj.Pillai
relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court are extracted below: -
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 3 vs Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. on 24 April, 2023
15. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. In the present appeal the Revenue challenges the correctness
of the findings of the CIT(A) deleting additions made on account of
unexplained cash deposits, credits in the bank accounts and loans
received from Nagaland parties. Now we shall take up the
preliminary objections raised by the assessee challenging the very
jurisdiction u/s. 153A to make the addition. It is the contention of
the assessee company that in the absence of evidence found during
the search and seizure action, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of
the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023]
454 ITR 212Therefore, we proceed to examine the facts of the case,
to find out the existence of any incriminating material found as a
result of search and seizure action which is a condition precedent to
make addition in the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
1