INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHR AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A N D

SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA Nos. 286 & 287/Del/2015
(Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12)

DCIT, M/s. Madhvilata Granite
Central Circle – 31,
Vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.
11–12, Ambika Mills
(Appellant)
Compound, Senapati Bapat

Marg, Mahalaxmi,

Mumbai – 400 013

PAN: AAECM9923F

Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi,
C.A.;
Department by :
Ms. Pramita M. Biswas
Date of Hearing [CIT] – DR;
Date of pronouncement 8/04/2021
11/05/2021

O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. :

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the revenue against
consolidated order of dated 29.09.2014, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-
XXXIII, New Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed u/s
153C/153A for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. In the
grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged deletion of addition of
2

Rs. 99,84,26,936 in the AY 2010-11; and Rs.45,57,85,000/- in the AY
2011-12 made u/s 68 on account of share capital and premium.

2. The assessee also filed following ground to support decision of Ld
CIT(A) under rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, before Hon’ble ITAT: -

“On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law,
the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the
additions in assessment order Passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not an abated assessment,
without any incriminating documents were found during the
course of search. “

3. Since the grounds raised by the respondent assessee under rule 27
of the ITAT Rules is purely a legal issue arising out facts already on
record and specific finding of Ld. CIT(A), therefore same is admitted and
are being taken for adjudication first. The facts in brief are that, M/s
Madhvilata Granite (India) Ltd was having its registered office at Plot No.
11-12, Ambika Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahalaxmi,
Mumbai (Maharashtra)-400013, which was incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 on 19.08.1991. During the relevant period, it has
shown interest income earned on FDRs. It was constructing a Hotel at
Noida and the said hotel project was yet to complete. On 22.11.2011,
the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department conducted Search
& Seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on different
concerns and persons of Gurinder Jit Singh Group. In the said search
operations, the case of M/s Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 30, Community
Centre, Saket, New Delhi was also covered under search u/s 132. On the
basis of certain documents allegedly belonging to the assessee company
3

to have been seized in the said search operations, proceedings u/s 153C
were initiated in the case of the appellant company and assessments of 6
assessment years were reopened.

3.1 The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-23, New Delhi initiated assessment
proceedings u/s 153C, nearly 22 months after the date of search, i.e.,
22.11.2011 and sent notices u/s 153C dated 20.09.2013 for filing of
return of income for both the assessment years after recording the
‘satisfaction’. In response to notice u/s 153C, return of income was filed
on 30.12.2013 with the ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. In the
meantime, the CIT (Central)-III, New Delhi had transferred the case to
the ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vide his order u/s 127 of the Act
dated 12.11.2013. So, the assessments in the case of the appellant
company have been completed by the ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi.
Ld. Assessing Officer, upon receipt of case on transfer from the ACIT,
Central Circle-23, New Delhi, resumed the assessment proceedings and
completed the assessment on 30.03.2014 after making the aforesaid
additions made u/s 68 of Rs. 99,84,26,936 in the AY 2010-11; and
Rs.45,57,85,000/- in the AY 2011-12 on account of share capital and
premium. These additions have been made, based on entries of
inventories of shares as given in balance sheet already on record, rather
than any incriminating or seized documents or anything mentioned in
the satisfaction note.

4. In first appeal, Ld CIT (A) has deleted the said additions on merits,
on the ground that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the identity,
genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties and AO has failed to
make any further enquiry in the case. The assessee also took ground
4

before the Ld CIT (A) that the addition is otherwise not sustainable as the
same is made without any incriminating document found during the
course of search and both the year are unabated assessment years.
However, Ld CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in case of Shri Anil Bhatia held that AO have authority to assess income
of last six years U/s 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act and rejected this legal
contention of the Assessee. Relevant finding of Ld CIT (A) is given on page
17 & 18 of his order, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“Second argument is that in the case of closed assessment, no addition can
be made without /seized document and relied on various judicial
pronouncements. I have perused the assessment order. The appellant has
filed following submission before the Assessing Officer on seized documents:-

Page Documents Seized Explanation

Annx- Extract of Signed Balance Sheet of The same is copy of audited
balance sheet as on
A9 Madhvilata Granite (India) Limited 31.03.2010 submitted with
your honour.
Page 44- for the financial year ended as on

46 31.03.2010

Annx- Correspondence vis e-mail between General Correspondence only
A9- Madhvilata Granite (India) Limited for finalization balance sheet.
Page Branch office and corporate office,
50-52 discussion for finalization of balance

sheet
5

Annx Cancelled cheques in possession of Cheque at page no. 60 , 61

A9- Accountant of Madhvilata Granite and 63 issued to parties and

Page (India) Limited cancelled due to expiry date.

60-63 Further, wrt cheque at page

62 relates to refund of share

application money received

but not issued and shown in

cu liability of balance sheet of

assessee company of AY.

2012-13
Annx- Master Date information as available The same is detail of

A-10, on MCA site like date of companies also available at

Page incorporation, Registered office MCA site.

48-53 Address, Authorised share capital

etc of Jaguar, Madhvilata and Group

companies.

A perusal of the above reveals that Annexure A-9 page 44-46 contains
balance sheet of the appellant company. Additions are made on account of
share capital. Therefore, the additions are relatable to seized document. I
rely on the decision of hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Anil Bhatia
in ITA 1626, 1632, 1998, 2006, 2019 & 2020 of 2010 dated 7.08.2012 that
the jurisdiction of assessing officer u/s 153A is to assess total income for the
year and not restricted to seized material. Where it has been held that even if
for one assessment year, there are seized documents, the relatable to
addition, the assessing officer can be made addition for all assessment
years covered u/s 153A. Accordingly, on jurisdictional ground, the grounds
of appeal are dismissed for both the assessment years. “
6

5. On merits the findings of Ld. CIT (A) are as under:-

“ I have considered all the basis of addition and arguments of Ld. AR.
During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has submitted evidences
such as confirmation of purchase of invest, ITR of purchasing companies,
PAN card of purchasing companies and other documents to prove the
genuineness of sale transactions investor. All these purchasers are company
incorporated with under Companies Act, except M/s. S. S. Securities. The
appellant has given current address of these share holder companies.

The Ld. Assessing Officer has given the findings that first notice u/s 133(6)
was returned back. Subsequently, new address of purchasing companies
was given by the appellant and fresh notice was issued. Some of them filed
the reply. The assessing officer has not commented in which case, there was
no compliance. I have perused the records. There are replies from these
purchasing companies on their letter head bearing addresses. It could be
ascertained from the order sheet or records that in the case of any
purchasing company’s reply was not received to whom the notice u/s 133(6)
was issued at new address except in the case of M/s. S. S. Securities. In any
case, the assessing officer has not confronted to the appellant during the
assessment proceedings that even on current address, any purchase
company has not replied. Therefore, such sweeping mark of the assessing
officer does not prove that in some cases, the reply was not received except
in specific case of M/s. S. S. Securities.

In case of finding of the investigation wing of Pune, the assessing
officer has not mentioned in the assessment order, the address on which
enquiry was conducted & the contents of the enquiry report. Further, I have
perused the order sheet of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has
not given an opportunity to explain the findings of the investigation wing that
the share holder companies were not found at even old address. Even
investigation wing, Pune’s report was apparently not confronted to the
appellant and is not part of the order. Under these circumstances, in my view
no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant of such enquiries.

Once these purchase companies have complied with requirement of
notice u/s 133(6), the assessing officer was not required to ask the appellant
to produce directors of the purchase companies unless some defects were
pointed out in the details filed by the appellant or reply received
7

independently from purchasing companies. Ld. assessing officer instead of
making enquiry on the current address of shareholder given by the appellant
to find identity of such shareholder & documents submitted by the
shareholder in response to notice u/s 133(6), asked to produce directors of
these shareholder companies. In my view, once the appellant has filed all
documents in support of share capital and new address of the share holder
companies, onus was lying on the assessing officer to disprove the same.
Without disproving these evidences onus will not shift back to the appellant.
Under these circumstances, even the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in the case of N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., will not help the case, as in that case,
the assessing officer has made enquiry to disprove apparently the evidences
filed by the assessee, then the decision was given that the onus was shifted
back on the assessee to produce directors.

The above findings are applicable in all purchasers of the investment of
the appellant except M/s. S. S. Securities which has not replied the notice
u/s 133(6). M/s. S. S. Securities is claimed as share broker by the appellant
and the appellant has not produced even the bill for the sale of investment.
Therefore, in the case of M/s. S. S. Securities, in my view, the appellant has
not proved the sale transaction.

In present facts & circumstances of the case, the decision relied by the
Ld. AR namely the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steller
Finance Ltd and decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nipuan
Auto (P) Ltd cited Supra appears to be more applicable that the appellant has
discharged onus cast upon it u/s 68 to prove the share capital. Considering
entire facts & circumstances of the case, in my view the appellant has
discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of sale of securities except in
the case of M/s. S. S. Securities. Accordingly, I delete the addition made u/s
68 in respect of share capital added for both the assessment years except
Rs. 10,00,000 received from M/s. S. S. Securities. These grounds of appeal
are partly allowed for A.Y. 2010-11 and allowed for A.Y. 2009-10.

6. Fourth ground of appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is alternative ground. As I
have given the relief on substantive ground. I am not adjudicating the
alternative grounds.

7. Fourth ground of appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is against invoking two
provisions inserted in section 68 of I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer, when
these provisions were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013.
8

I have perused the assessment order. The Ld. Assessing Officer has
quoted these two provisos in section 68 of I.T. Act. During the appellate
proceedings, Ld. AR argued that these provisions are inserted w.e.f.
1.4.2013 i.e. A.Y. 2013-14.

I have perused the provision to section 68. First proviso to section 68
for onus on a company other public company has been widened w.e.f
1.4.2013 and, therefore, this proviso is not applicable to the impugned
assessment year being earlier assessment years. “

6. Being aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT (A), the revenue filed
appeal before this ITAT. The assessee also filed the aforesaid ground
(supra) to support the decision of Ld CIT (A) under rule 27 of the ITAT
Rules, and as stated above, since the said ground relate to jurisdiction of
the Assessing Officer to assess the income u/s 153A/153C; hence the
same is being taken first before hearing the department appeal.

7. We have heard both the parties at length on this issue and have
also perused the finding of CIT (A) and material placed on record. We will
first take up the issue, whether cases falling under section 153C, the
period of six years have to be reckoned from the date of recording of
satisfaction note or from the date of search carried out in a case of a
person provided in Section 153A. This precise issue has been dealt by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd.
as reported in 380 ITR 612 in the context of Section 153C of the Act,
wherein it was laid down as under:

“Further, the period of six years would also have to be reckoned with
respect to the date of recording of satisfaction note - that is, 8th
September, 2010 - and not the date of search.
9

24. As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of
the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second
proviso to Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of
handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being
the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction
to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings by virtue of Section
153C(1) of the Act would have to be in accordance with Section 153A
of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be
construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It
would follow that the six assessment years for which
assessments/reassessments could be made under Section 153C of
the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of
handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this
case, it would be the date of the recordings of satisfaction under
Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the
assessments made in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and
2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as
reckoned with reference to the date of recordings of satisfaction by
the AO of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that
the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years
prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which
the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the
Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person
searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the
year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of
any other person, who is not searched but his assets are seized from
the searched person, the period for which the assessments could be
10

reopened would be much beyond the period of six years. This is so
because the date of handing over of assets/documents of a person,
other than the searched person, to the AO would be subsequent to
the date of the search. This, in our view, would be contrary to the
scheme of Section 153C (1) of the Act, which construes the date of
receipt of assets and documents by the AO of the Assessee (other
than one searched) as the date of the search on the Assessee. The
rationale appears to be that whereas in the case of a searched
person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized
assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the seized
assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched
person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the
AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do
not belong to the searched person. Thus, the date on which the AO of
the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of
the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the
provisions of Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the
contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04
and AY 2004-05 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act
and the AO had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the
Assessee's income for that year.”

This principle was further reiterated in the case of ARN
Infrastructure India Ltd. v. ACIT as reported in 394 ITR 569, wherein
it has been held as under:

"12. The decision in RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) is categorical that under
/ Section 153C of the Act, the period of six years as regards the person
11

other than the searched person would commence only from the year in
which the satisfaction not is prepared by the AO of the searched person
and a notice is issued pursuant thereto. The date of the Satisfaction
Note is 21st July, 2014 and the notice under Section 153C of the
Act was issued on 23rd July, 2014. The previous six AYs would
therefore be from AY 2009-10 to AY 2014-15. This would therefore
not include AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09.”

9. Here in this case, in view of above judicial precedence, it cannot be
disputed that both the Assessment years, i.e., A Y 2010-11 & 2011-12
were non-abated assessment year as per second proviso to section 153A
of the Act, which is clear from the following chart summarizing the
various events:-

Sl. Particulars A Y 2010-11 A Y 2011-12
22/11/2011
No. 22/09/2013
22/09/2013
1 Search on Akriti Hotel P Ltd 22/11/2011
30/09/2011
2 Notice Issued U/s 153C 22/09/2013 30/09/2012
08/02/2012
3 Deemed date of search as per 22/09/2013

proviso to section 153C(1) as

date of satisfaction has not

been mentioned.

4 Return filed U/s 139 14/10/2010

5 Last Date of issue Notice U/s 30/09/2011

143(2)

6. Assessment Completed U/s 07/03/2011

143(1)
12

10. From the above chart it is clear that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act
could have been served upon the assessee till 30.09.2011 & 30.09.2012
for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively as per the law prevailing on the
said date, however, no such notice was given. Since no assessment was
made thereafter u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act within the time allowed for the
same, therefore, the assessment completed u/s 143(1) had become final
assessment. At the time of issuance of notice and taking up the
proceedings u/s 153C, the assessments for these two assessment years
did not abate as per second proviso to Section 153A. In case of unabated
assessments, legally speaking, no addition could be made, which is not
based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course
of search in the case of a concluded assessment as per series of
judgments of Jurisdictional High Court, lead case being of CIT Vs. Kabul
Chawla, reported in 380 ITR 573 (Delhi).

11. Further, to substantiate the fact that date of search as per proviso
to section 153C (1) in this case is 22.09.2013, it has been brought on
record by the assessee after taking inspection of the assessment records
and also as per order sheet noting obtained from the Assessing Officer,
first noting is from 20/09/2013 for assuming jurisdiction U/s 153C of
the Act. Nowhere the date of recording of satisfaction has been provided
nor has it been brought on record that satisfaction was recorded prior to
the year 2012 and notice u/s 153C was issued in September 2013. Thus,
the date of issuance of notice has to be reckoned as date of initiation in
this case. Extract of the order sheet notings for A Y 2010-11 & 2011-12
(scan copy) as placed on record before is reproduced as under:-
13
14

12. From the above order sheet it is very clear that the deemed date of
search as per proviso to 153C (1) is 20/09/2013 and accordingly, on that
date both the assessment years are unabated as per second proviso to
section 153A of the Act.

13. During the course of search which is an admitted fact that, no
incriminating documents relating to impugned addition made on account
of share capital or share premium was found. Details of documents
belonging to assessee found during the course of search are listed on
page 17 of Ld CIT (A) order as incorporated above. Assessee also filed
copies of these documents which are on page 423-437 of the paper book.
These documents are in the nature of audited balance sheet and email
exchanged for finalization of accounts and there is no connection of these
documents with the addition made by the AO. Such documents cannot
be held to be incriminating to come to even prima facie satisfaction that
some undisclosed income is to be assessed especially in case of unabated
assessment years. Therefore, in view of settled position of law which are
mentioned herein after in succeeding paras, no addition can be made in
the assessment order passed U/s 153C of the Act.

14. Ld CIT-D.R. during the course of hearing referred page 253-258 of
paper book filed by dept. which is letter written to Investigation wing,
Thane, Maharashtra and stated that the same shows there is post search
enquiry on the issue involved. In this regard it has been clarified by the
Ld. Counsel that the said enquiry was not done during post search
proceeding but during the course of assessment proceedings by the
Assessing Officer himself. Further in the entire assessment order there is
no reference of any seized documents given by the Assessing Officer nor
15

any incriminating information or material regarding share capital
received from various parties. Therefore, the contention of Ld. CIT-D.R.
has been found to be incorrect. Rather, we find the contention of the Ld.
Counsel to be correct on face of record and from the impugned orders. In
fact, Ld CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee on the
plea that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Shri Anil Bhatia (211
Taxman 453)(Delhi) held that the jurisdiction of assessing officer U/s
153A is to assessee total income for the year and not restricted to seized
material. Nowhere he has found or held that the impugned addition is
based on any incriminating material found during search. This
judgement has been heavily relied upon by the Ld. CIT DR also who has
read the relevant portion of the judgment before us.

15. In our opinion, Ld CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the decision of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Shri, Anil Bhatia (supra). In this case
in para 23 the Hon’ble Court itself have clarified this aspect in the
following manner:-

“23. We are not concerned with a case where no incriminating
material was found during the search conducted under
Section 132 of the Act. We, therefore, express no opinion as to
whether Section 153A can be invoked even in such a situation.
That question is therefore left open.”

Thus, from the above finding it is clear that the their Lordships in the
above decision has not adjudicated the issue when no incriminating
document found during the course of search.
16

16. Further, Ld. CIT (A) mentioned that in the seized material is in the
form of audited balance sheet of the assessee found and the addition is
related to share capital which is part of balance sheet. Hence addition
relates to seized material. At any stretch of imagination, audited balance
sheet cannot be termed as incriminating document so as to draw adverse
inference of any undisclosed income as they are already disclosed in the
return of income and are already part of earlier assessment as they have
been duly disclosed in the balance sheet filed along with the return of
income which assessments have attained finality. Once the addition has
been made without any incriminating documents or material especially
for unabated assessments, then in view of principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, reported in
380 ITR 573 (Delhi) such additions cannot be roped in the assessments
made u/s 153A. It has held that completed assessments can be
interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section
153A 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. In the case of assessee the balance sheet was part of return
filed by the assessee, hence it cannot be said the same was not available
with AO in original assessment and the same can be no way termed as
incriminating document unearthed during the course of search. Hence
contention of Ld CIT (A) cannot be accepted in view the decision of
jurisdictional High Court.

17. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad
Technical Education Society (397 ITR 344) (SC) wherein exactly
17

similar legal/technical ground was taken for the first time before the
ITAT. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Tribunal
that addition cannot be made for the assessment years for which there
are no incriminating documents found during the course of search in the
assessments framed u/s 153C. The Hon’ble Court upheld the order of
the Tribunal in the following manner:-

16) In these appeals, qua the aforesaid four Assessment Years, the
assessment is quashed by the ITAT (which order is upheld by the High
Court) on the sole ground that notice under Section 153C of the Act was
legally unsustainable. The events recorded above further disclose that
the issue pertaining to validity of notice under Section 153C of the Act
was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal
permitted the assessee to raise this additional ground and while
dealing with the same on merits, accepted the contention of the
assessee.

17) First objection of the learned Solicitor General was that it was
improper on the part of the ITAT to allow this ground to be raised, when
the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction under Section 153C of
the Act before the AO. Therefore, in the first instance, it needs to be
determined as to whether ITAT was right in permitting the assessee to
raise this ground for the first time before it, as an additional ground.

18) The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it
was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the
record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted
by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the
Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to
18

the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact
that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-
relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years.
Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is
essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a
jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and
valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the
Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned
through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed
therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to
Assessment Year 2004-05 thereafter. After taking note of the material
in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed
in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the
Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the
High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of
the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01
and 2001-02 was even time barred.

19) We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional
ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits
as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is,
therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the
respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and
2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned
findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy.
19

The sequitur of the judgment which can be culled out is that, seized
incriminating material has to pertain to the assessment year in question
and have co-relation, document-wise, with the assessment year. This
requirement u/s 153C is essential and becomes a jurisdictional fact. It is
an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or
other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized
or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred
to in S. 153A. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly
clinches the issue in favour of the assessee in this case.

18. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Allied
Perfumes P Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 237 (Delhi) held as under:-

“13. Upon reading of the aforesaid extracted portion of the
impugned order, it is clearly discernable that the ITAT has
given a finding of fact that the assessments make no
reference to the seized material or any other material for the
years under consideration, that was found during the course
of search, in the case of the assessee. Mr. Maratha is also
unable to point out any incriminating material related to the
assessee which could justify the action of the Revenue. Merely
because a satisfaction note has been recorded, cannot lead us
to reach to this conclusion, especially when the Revenue has
not laid any foundation to support their contention. In the
factual background as explained above, the assumption of
jurisdiction under section 153C cannot be sustained in view of
the decision of this Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra)”
20

19. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
aforesaid binding judicial pronouncements, we hold that the additions
made in the order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C, for the captioned
assessment years which are unabated assessments, cannot be made,
because same are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153C/ 153A as
the same are without any incriminating documents found during search.
Hence on legal grounds the impugned additions are deleted.

20. In the result Revenue’s appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2021.

Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) ( AMIT SHUKLA )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 11/05/2021.

*MEHTA*

Copy forwarded to :
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi
21

Date of dictation 11.05.2021
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 11.05.2021
dictating member 11.05.2021
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 11.05.2021
other member 11.05.2021
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. 11.05.2021
PS/ PS 11.05.2021
Date on which the fair order is placed before the 11.05.2021
dictating member for pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.
PS/ PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the
website of ITAT
date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant
Registrar for signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the order