Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 ... vs Meeta Gutgutia on 15 May, 2018
The SLP in the cases of
'Meeta Gutgutia' (supra and 'Kabul Chawla' (supra),were
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having found no
merit therein. In 'PCIT vs. M/s Abhisar BuildwellP.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Kabul Chawla on 29 March, 2016
Ltd.',
vide order dated 24.4.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held, agreeing with 'Kabul Chawla' (supra), that in case no
incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the
Assessing Officer cannot assess or re-assess taking into
consideration the other material in respect of the completed
assessment / unabated assessment; that meaning thereby,
that in respect of completed / unabated assessment, no
addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the
absence of any incriminating material found during the
course of search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr.Sadique Ummer on 8 December, 2009
22. On the other hand, the ld. DR, supporting the impugned
order in this regard, has contended that as correctly stated
by the ld. CIT(A) and not rebutted on behalf of the Assessee,
the search warrant was duly executed in the name of the
Assessee on 6.2.2018 in respect of the premises situated at
SCO 80-81, 4th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh; that,
therefore, the Assessing Officer was well justified in
initiating assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act; that
as correctly noted by the ld. CIT(A) in terms of the provisions
of section 153A (1)(b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was
required to assess / re-assess the total income of the
Assessee for the year under consideration; that as held by
the Hon'ble Kerela High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. KP
Ummer' (supra), when a notice u/s 153A of the Act is issued,
it enables the Department to carry out assessment / re-
assessment with respect to the six immediate prior years and
this does not require any incriminating material recovered
during the search relating to those prior years, in which,
there was no time left on the date of search for an
assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act; that the same view has
been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case
of 'Rajkumar Arora', (supra), the Hon'ble Kerela High Court
ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023
A.Y. 2014-15
19
in the case of 'EN Gopakumar vs. CIT', (supra) and the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'CIT vs.
Keserwani ZardaBhandar', (supra); that the ld. CIT(A) has
correctly held that in view of the provisions of the Act and
the ratios of these decisions, the Assessing Officer was
indeed having jurisdiction to assess the income of the
Assessee on the basis of the material available at the time of
the assessment and he was to restrict the additions subject
to incriminating material found during the course of search.
The ld. DR has contended that in this view of the matter,
there being no merit therein, Ground Nos. 3 to 5 may be
rejected.
The Companies Act, 1956
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 24 vs Govind Agarwal Huf on 9 July, 2018
Further, as
correctly contended on behalf of the Assessee, 'Ashisar
Buildwell' has been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in the case of'Pr. CIT v Sandeep Aggarwal (HUF)', vide
order dated 9/10/2023, wherein, it has been held that the
clarification issued by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case
of Abhisar Buildwell' and 'U.K. Paints', has been issued in
ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023
A.Y. 2014-15
21
the context of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of
the Act as well.