Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.50 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 3 vs Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. on 24 April, 2023
76. Before parting, we may herein observe that though the additions
made by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act,
dated 30.12.2019, had been vacated by us on the ground that in absence
of any incriminating material found during the course of search
proceedings conducted on the assessee company, no addition could have
been made by the A.O while framing assessment u/s. 153A of the Act as
regards the unabated/completed assessment for the subject year, i.e.
A.Y.2010-11, but as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P)
Ltd. (supra), the remedy is still available to the revenue to initiate
reassessment proceedings u/ss.147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment
of the conditions mentioned in the said statutory provisions. Accordingly,
the A.O in the present case is directed to consider initiation of
reassessment proceedings u/ss. 147/148 of the Act in the backdrop of
Section 150 of the Act as per the extant law.
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 ... vs Param Dairy Ltd. on 23 July, 2021
126. Based on our aforesaid observations, we are of the view that as the
contents of the seized document, viz. Page No.44 of LPS-1 makes a
mention that an amount of share capital (Rs.65,78,940/-) and share
premium (Rs.6,27,70,958/-) was received by the assessee company during
the subject year, a fact which was duly disclosed in its audited "balance
sheet" for the said year, therefore, the same cannot be brought within the
meaning of "incriminating material" found during the course of search
proceedings. Our aforesaid view that a transaction recorded in the books of
account of an assessee, which had been subjected to audit and was
disclosed in its financial statements enclosed along with the original return
of income cannot be brought within the meaning of "incriminating
material" found in the course of search proceedings is supported by the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs.
Param Dairy Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 89 (Del.). In the case before the Hon'ble
High Court, search and seizure operations u/s.132 of the Act were carried
out on the assessee group on 28.02.2024. Although, the assessee company
in its return of income had claimed cash payments of about Rs.17 crores
to dairy owners from whom it had purchased milk, but in the course of
search proceedings, it was found that the said payments were not made to
the dairy owners but to middlemen. As the cash payments made by the
assessee company to middlemen were not permitted, thus, the A.O made
addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee company.
The Finance Act, 2017
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 13 February, 2004
89. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of a firm conviction that as
the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur had no occasion to consider the
changes/modifications/alteration carried out by the Dy.CIT(Central
Circle)-2, Raipur to the "draft assessment order" that was approved by him
on 30.12.2019; nor was informed of the assessment proceedings that were
continued by the A.O after forwarding of the "draft assessment order" on
26.12.2019, therefore, we concur with the Ld. AR that the final assessment
order was passed by the A.O without obtaining the approval of the Jt. CIT,
Range-Central, Raipur as required per the mandate of Section 153D of the
Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Akil Gulamali Somji, ITA No.
1416 to 1419 dated 15.01.2013 and the order of ITAT, Pune in the case
of BBG India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.11 to 16/PUN/2023, dated
19.10.2023. Accordingly, in absence of a valid approval having been
granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur, based on which, the
common final assessment order had been passed by the A.O u/s.143(3)
r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, we are of the view that
the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said
count itself. Our aforesaid view that in absence of a valid approval u/s.
153D of the Act the assessment framed by the A.O cannot be sustained is
121
M/s. N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.
Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 August, 2021
91. At this stage, we may herein observe that in the case of Hitesh
Golchha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), the assessee except for
122
M/s. N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.
Acit vs M/S. Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata on 15 March, 2023
separately. Also, it was observed that in case approval was granted in a
mechanical manner without application of mind by the Jt. CIT, then the
same vitiated the assessment order. Further, we may herein observe that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & CO,
SLP (Civil) Diary No.44989/2023 dated 28.11.2023, had approved the
order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs.
Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa), wherein it was held that
non-compliance with the requirements of Section 153D or granting
approval without proper examination can lead to the invalidation of the
assessment order. It was, thus, observed that a mere mechanical approval
without proper examination and understanding of the draft assessment
104
M/s. N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.