sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
 uresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

RG Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 109, MCD Market, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh,Delhi. Vs. DCIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi.
November, 19th 2015

                          ITA No.2514/Del/2015
                         Assessment Year : 2008-09

RG Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,             Vs.    DCIT,
109, MCD Market,                             Circle-15(1),
Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh,                  New Delhi.


     (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

              Assessee By        :    Shri Ved Jain, Advocate
              Department By      :    Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR

           Date of Hearing               :    23.10.2015
           Date of Pronouncement         :    17 .11.2015

       This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the

CIT(A)-7, Delhi, dated 03.02.2015 for assessment year 2008-09.

2.     After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on

record, I hold as follows. This is an order passed u/s 143(3) read with

section 153A of the Act in view of the requirements u/s 132A of the IT
                                                                 ITA No.2514/Del/2015

Act, 1961. From para 5 of the assessment order, it is clear that the

additions in this case are not based on any material found or seized during

the course of search. The additions were made based on the perusal of the

financial statements.     It is not the case of the Revenue that the

assessments in this case have abated. Under these circumstances, we,

apply the propositions laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the

case of CIT, Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No.707/2014 vide

judgment dated 20th April, 2015, wherein at paras 37 and 38 it has been

held as follows:-

      "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the
      provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the
      aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under:

      i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under
      Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person
      searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately
      preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search
      takes place.
      ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search
      shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed
      by the AOs as a fresh exercise.
      iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the
      six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place.
      The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the
      aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the
      six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in

                                                           ITA No.2514/Del/2015

respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the
undisclosed income would be brought to tax".
iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be
strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the
search, or other post-search material or information available with the
AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that
the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or
nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be
made under this Section only on the basis of seized material."
v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment
can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be
made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated
proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word
'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings.
vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to
make the original assessment and the assessment under Section
153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately
for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other
material existing or brought on the record of the AO.
vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while
making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some
incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or
requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property
discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not
already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.


38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-
07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood
completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the
search, no additions could have been made to the income already

                                                                  ITA No.2514/Del/2015

3.        Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), we uphold the decision

of the ld.CIT(A) and delete the additions.

4.        In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

          The order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2015.


                                                  [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY]
                                                 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 17th November, 2015.


Copy forwarded to:

     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT (A)
     5.   DR, ITAT
                                                      AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions