DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ANNEXXEE BUILDING, V. RAKESH CHOUBEY, MITHAPUR, KHAUL ROAD, PATNA

ITSSA 290/PAT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the additions made by the AO concerning sundry creditors and investments for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The main contention was whether the additions made by the AO were supported by any incriminating material found during the search operation. The CIT(A) had quashed the notice under section 153A and deleted the additions based on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which held that additions in unabated assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, except for the quashing of the notice under section 153A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826417 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD. AH CHOWDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S AK RASTOGI; RAKESH KUMAR; ARS
• Keywords: Document seized
• Section: 153A; 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM IT(SS)A Nos. 289 & 290/PAT/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income- Tax, CC-2, Patna Aaykar Bhavan, Annexee building, 6th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001, Bihar Vs. Rakesh Choubey S/o Ramesh Chandra Choubey, Besides R.K. Public School, Opposite-Jain mandir, Ramesh Printing works land, Mithapur, Khaul Road, Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ABWPC7431Q Assessee by : S/Shri AK Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR Date of hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna-3(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.07.2023 for the AY 2013-14. 2. As the facts and circumstances are exactly similar in both the appeals, hence we decide these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We first take ITA No.288/PAT/2023 and decide the issue accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 IT(SS)A No.289 & 290/PAT/2023 Rakesh Choubey; A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 288/PAT/2023 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹5,01,20,154/- and ₹2,69,86,532/- as made by the learned AO on account of sundry creditors and investments respectively. The Revenue has also challenged the quashing of notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 16.02.2022 by ld CIT(A), while deleting the addition made by the learned AO. 3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly, the assessment is a unabated or completed assessment on the date of search as the time period for issuance of parties u/s 143(2) of the Act had already expired on 30.09.2014. The assessee filed the return of income on 13.01.2014, u/s 139(1) of the Act. The search in this case was conducted on 06.10.2020. Therefore, in order to make addition in an abated assessment would require the seized incriminating material during the course of search in respect of additions made by the learned AO. In the present case, we note that the learned AO has made an addition in respect of items as mentioned in the balance sheet of the assessee without referring any incriminating material. We also note that there was only one document seized during the course of search marked as MK-07, which was referred by the learned AO on the same in fact related to the period commending from June 2015 to December, 2017 and not to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course of search in order to make the addition during the instant assessment year. We note that the learned CIT (A) while deleting the addition has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 IT(SS)A No.289 & 290/PAT/2023 Rakesh Choubey; A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC).The learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration the appellate contention, submission/ documents furnished during the course of appellate proceedings by observing and holding as under:- “In the instant case, the appellant filed his return of income u/s 139 on 13.01.2014. Accordingly, time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) expired on 30.09.2014. Further, the search in the case was conducted on 06.10.2020. Therefore, the case of the appellant was unabated on the date of initiation of search. Further, the AO has referred to the balance sheet of the appellant while discussing about the sundry creditors and the investments made by the appellant Further, no discussion as to how the seized document, MK-07 was incriminating has been made in the assessment order, Accordingly, I find that the case of appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell P. Ltd (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399(SC) delivered or 24.04.2023. Respectfully following the said decision in case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra), the additions made by the AO on account of sundry creditors and investment without reference to any incriminating evidence found in course of search to support these additions are liable to be deleted, However, I have already quashed the notice u/s 153A itself, this issue is rendered academic in nature.” 3.2. Therefore, we do not find any defect or deficiency in the appellate order which is in turn is very speaking and reasoned order. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. We modify the order of learned CIT (A) to the extent it quash the notice u/s 153A of the Act. However, finding of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition without there being any incriminating material are upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 289/PAT/2023 4. The issue raised in this appeal which is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 288/PAT/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14 (supra). Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal of Revenue in Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 IT(SS)A No.289 & 290/PAT/2023 Rakesh Choubey; A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITA No. 289/PAT/2023. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Patna, Dated: 09.01.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "