GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1055/MUM/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Grasim Industries Limited, which faced reassessment proceedings under sections 148 and 153C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The primary contention revolved around the validity of the notices issued under these sections and the subsequent additions made to the assessee's income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai heard cross-appeals from both the assessee and the Revenue, addressing issues such as the legality of the notices, the applicability of incriminating material, and the correct interpretation of sections 148 and 153C in the context of the case. The Tribunal's decision involved a detailed examination of legal precedents and statutory provisions, leading to a remand for further proceedings on specific grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123638 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation, PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd, CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd, CIT vs. M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd, ITO vs. Shri Takhtmal Bhuralal Piccholiya, DCIT vs. M/s CMI PPE Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH THAR AYUSHI
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 133(6); 143(1); 64; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 1053 to 1055/MUM/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, Corporate Finance Division, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Vs. The DCIT CC-1(4), Room No. 902, 9 th floor, Old CGO Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACG 4464 B Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 1557, 1562 & 1559/MUM/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 to 2010-11 JCIT (OSD), Central Circle- 1(4), Room No. 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, 9 th floor, Old CGO Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Grasim Industries Limited, Corporate Finance Division, A- 2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. PAN No. AAACG 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. Ayushi Modani Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26/04/2023 Date of pronouncement : 31/05/2023 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against separate orders, each dated 27.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008 respectively. As common grounds are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed o consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First of all, we take up the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue for assessment year 2008 assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the law, the learned CIT(A) erred in validating the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in issuing of an invalid notice us 153C of the Act and in passing order dated 29.03.2016 u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and holding that the payment of Rs. 10,53,83, 193/ Appellant on account of capit accommodation entry and no depreciation allowance is allowable on the said amount in the subsequent years. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO i subsidy of Rs.8,12,15,141/ ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against separate orders, each dated 27.04.2016, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010 respectively. As common grounds are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. we take up the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue for assessment year 2008-09. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in validating the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in issuing of an invalid notice us 153C of the Act and in passing order dated 29.03.2016 u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and holding that the payment of Rs. 10,53,83, 193/- Appellant on account of capital work in progress was an accommodation entry and no depreciation allowance is allowable on the said amount in the subsequent years. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in rejecting the claim of the Appellant to treat the subsidy of Rs.8,12,15,141/- under Technology Up Grasim Industries Ltd. 2 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. These cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed passed by the Ld. 47, Mumbai [in short ‘the 10 and 2010-11 respectively. As common grounds are involved in these appeals, ff by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. we take up the cross appeals of the assessee and 09. The grounds raised by the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in validating the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in issuing of an invalid notice us 153C of the Act and in passing order dated Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and holding made by the al work in progress was an accommodation entry and no depreciation allowance is allowable on the said amount in the subsequent years. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of n rejecting the claim of the Appellant to treat the under Technology Up- gradation Fund Scheme as capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred the AO in rejecting the claim of the Appellant to treat dividend income of Rs. 1,16,24,021/ Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in India and exclude the same from taxable income. 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating the search and the assessment has reached its finality and was not abated at the initiation proceedings us. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. 2 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred, i can be made u/s 153C of the Act, once the assessment has reached to finality us 143(3) of the Act, and no incriminating documents have been found and seized in the case of the assessee during the course of search and seizure acti jurisdictional Bombay high Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corn. and M/s Murli Agro Products without appreciating that the revenue has not accepted the decision and has filed SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court" 3. 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 24,35,82,219/ Depreciation by treating the assessment as flawed in light of the judgements which and Bombay High Court. Besides this issue has not been examined and tested in the assessment and/or the Appellate Authorities.» 4. 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the additi Depreciation relying upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corn. [374 ITR 6451 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. gradation Fund Scheme as capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in rejecting the claim of the Appellant to treat dividend income of Rs. 1,16,24,021/- received from M/s Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in India and exclude the same from taxable income. nds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called for as there are no incriminating materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality and was not abated at the initiation proceedings us. (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961' 2 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred, in holding that no addition can be made u/s 153C of the Act, once the assessment has reached to finality us 143(3) of the Act, and no incriminating documents have been found and seized in the case of the assessee during the course of search and seizure action relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay high Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corn. and M/s Murli Agro Products without appreciating that the revenue has not accepted the decision and has filed SLP in the Hon'ble Court" 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 24,35,82,219/- on account of additional Spill Over Depreciation by treating the assessment as flawed in light of the judgements which are subjudice before Apex and Bombay High Court. Besides this issue has not been examined and tested in the assessment and/or the Appellate Authorities.» 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the additional Spill Over Depreciation relying upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corn. [374 ITR 6451- Hon'ble Mumbai HC, without appreciating that Grasim Industries Ltd. 3 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. gradation Fund Scheme as capital in nature and not On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in in upholding the action of the AO in rejecting the claim of the Appellant to treat received from M/s Alexandria Carbon Black Limited, Egypt as not taxable in India and exclude the same from taxable income. nds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee stating that no disallowance us 153C of the Act is called materials found during the search and the assessment has reached its finality and was not abated at the initiation proceedings us. 2 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and n holding that no addition can be made u/s 153C of the Act, once the assessment has reached to finality us 143(3) of the Act, and no incriminating documents have been found and seized in the case of the assessee during the course of search and on relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay high Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corn. and M/s Murli Agro Products without appreciating that the revenue has not accepted the decision and has filed SLP in the Hon'ble 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. on account of additional Spill Over Depreciation by treating the assessment as flawed in are subjudice before Apex and Bombay High Court. Besides this issue has not been examined and tested in the assessment and/or the 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law onal Spill Over Depreciation relying upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corn. [374 Hon'ble Mumbai HC, without appreciating that the revenue has not accepted the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and SLP i Supreme Court for adjudication" 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that is engaged in manufacturing of viscose staple cements and sponge Iron etc. For the year under consideration, t assessee filed its original return of income declaring total income at subsequently revised to return of income was tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act) and thereafter scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the determining total income at receipt of information from the investigation wing of department Kolkata, the reassessment proceedings were initiated by way of issue of notice dated the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (ABMCPL) i.e. a group concern , incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized by the Assessing Officer of the searched person he intimated to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer treated the reassessment proceedings as got abated and he issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. the revenue has not accepted the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication" Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of viscose staple fiber cements and sponge Iron etc. For the year under consideration, t filed its original return of income on 30/09/2008, declaring total income at ₹ 2681, 92, 06, 011/ subsequently revised to ₹ 2612, 46, 19, 627/-on 17/11/2009. The was processed under section 143(1) of the Income t, 1961 ( in short the Act) and thereafter scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25/03/2010 determining total income at ₹ 2779, 86, 88, 325/- receipt of information from the investigation wing of partment Kolkata, the reassessment proceedings were initiated by way of issue of notice dated 03/01/2014 under section 148 of consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. i.e. a group concern , on 16 th October 2013 incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and the Assessing Officer of the searched person the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Thereafter, the treated the reassessment proceedings as got issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on Grasim Industries Ltd. 4 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. the revenue has not accepted the aforesaid judicial s pending before the Hon'ble the assessee company fiber, chemicals, cements and sponge Iron etc. For the year under consideration, the on 30/09/2008, 2681, 92, 06, 011/-which was on 17/11/2009. The processed under section 143(1) of the Income- t, 1961 ( in short the Act) and thereafter scrutiny assessment ct was completed on 25/03/2010 -. Thereafter, on receipt of information from the investigation wing of Income-tax partment Kolkata, the reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 148 of consequent to the search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt. October 2013, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and the Assessing Officer of the searched person. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Thereafter, the treated the reassessment proceedings as got issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on 26.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file return of assessment year under consideration along with other assessment years falling in the search period. The assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were concluded by the Assessing Officer on 29.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer withdraw the additional depreciati also on the basis of information from investigation wing of the Income-tax department, which was received prior to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, rejected the claim of capi debited in books of account in respect of Cement Plant at Kotputali, Rajasthan. On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the assessment proceedings challenged the merit of the additions. The validity of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) however, held that Assessing Officer wa proceedings except the aid of the in CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the disallowance of additional issue of rejection Rs.10,53,83,193/-, t Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 693. ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 26.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file return of assessment year under consideration along with other assessment years falling in the search period. The assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were concluded by the Assessing Officer on wherein the Assessing Officer withdraw the additional depreciation of the assessee. The Assessing officer also on the basis of information from investigation wing of the tax department, which was received prior to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, rejected the claim of capital work debited in books of account in respect of Cement Plant at Kotputali, On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act challenged the merit of the additions. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) however, held that assessment was unabated , Assessing Officer was not authorized to disturb proceedings except the aid of the incriminating material. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the additional spill over depreciation allowance. On the of capital work in progress amounting to , the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 693. The assessee has challenged the Grasim Industries Ltd. 5 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 26.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file return of income for the assessment year under consideration along with other assessment years falling in the search period. The assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were concluded by the Assessing Officer on wherein the Assessing Officer withdrawn the claim of The Assessing officer also on the basis of information from investigation wing of the tax department, which was received prior to proceedings tal work-in-progress debited in books of account in respect of Cement Plant at Kotputali, On further appeal, the assessee challenged validity of u/s 153C of the Act as well as Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The Ld. assessment was unabated , therefore, the the completed criminating material. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the depreciation allowance. On the of capital work in progress amounting to A) upheld the action of the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book The assessee has challenged the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality of the assessment order. On merit, the assessee has filed an application for admitting additional evidence. are taking the grounds of the assessee related to merit of the addition for adjudication. 5. The brief facts qua the ground No. 2 of the appeal are that during the course of the search at the premises of and its group companies on 12.11.2012 by the Investigation Wing Kolkata, it was found that a company namely M/s Pvt. Ltd’. (now known managed by Shri Pravin Aggarwal and he had given bogus entries of accommodation bills through said company to various entities and the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accommodat bills of Rs.10,53,83,193/ 148 of the Act. The assessee for issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. M/s Taral Wincom Pvt. Ltd certain professional services to the assessee in relation to Cement plant at Kotputali Rajasthan. In support infrastructure work of land development and leveling at the site of the assessee’s cement plant, t sheet of quotations invited, decision for awarding contract, ledger account of the party, invoices, management sheet, bank payment vouchers, certificate of lower deduction of tax, TDS return etc . It ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on assessment order. On merit, the assessee has filed an application for admitting additional evidence. Therefore, are taking the grounds of the assessee related to merit of the addition for adjudication. The brief facts qua the ground No. 2 of the appeal are that during the course of the search at the premises of ‘Shri Pravin Aggarwal and its group companies on 12.11.2012 by the Investigation Wing Kolkata, it was found that a company namely M/s known as M/s LinkpointInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) was managed by Shri Pravin Aggarwal and he had given bogus entries of accommodation bills through said company to various entities and the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accommodat bills of Rs.10,53,83,193/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s . The assessee vide letter dated 02/06/2014 for issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act.The assessee claimed that Wincom Pvt. Ltd (in short ‘the Taral’) had certain professional services to the assessee in relation to Cement plant at Kotputali Rajasthan. In support of services of M/s Tara infrastructure work of land development and leveling at the site of the assessee’s cement plant, the assessee submitted a comparative sheet of quotations invited, decision for awarding contract, ledger account of the party, invoices, management sheet, bank payment vouchers, certificate of lower deduction of tax, TDS return etc . It Grasim Industries Ltd. 6 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on assessment order. On merit, the assessee has filed an Therefore, firstly, we are taking the grounds of the assessee related to merit of the The brief facts qua the ground No. 2 of the appeal are that during Shri Pravin Aggarwal’ and its group companies on 12.11.2012 by the Investigation Wing Kolkata, it was found that a company namely M/s ‘Taral Wincom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) was managed by Shri Pravin Aggarwal and he had given bogus entries of accommodation bills through said company to various entities and the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accommodation entry . The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s ide letter dated 02/06/2014 objected The assessee claimed that l’) had rendered certain professional services to the assessee in relation to Cement services of M/s Taral for infrastructure work of land development and leveling at the site of he assessee submitted a comparative sheet of quotations invited, decision for awarding contract, ledger account of the party, invoices, management sheet, bank payment vouchers, certificate of lower deduction of tax, TDS return etc . It was claimed by the a properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company further submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment fully and proviso to section 147 is applicable in the case of the assessee and therefore notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. The objections raised by the assessee company against the notice under section 148 of the Act 17/06/2014, wherein he stated that the fact of entry of professional work being bogus entry was not available with the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the assessment and it was re subsequently. As per the information no work was carried out by M/s Taral, as the said entity had no resources and manpower except for issuing bogus bills. Relevant part of the statement of Mr Praveen Agrawal was provided along with the reasons reco the assessee company. In this manner the Assessing Officer rejected the objection of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts truly and fully. 5.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer section 133(6) of the Act to M/s Tara work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly the Assessing Officer ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. was claimed by the assessee that the transaction w properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company further submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment fully and truly. The assessee company contended that proviso to section 147 is applicable in the case of the assessee and therefore notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. The objections raised by the assessee company against the notice under of the Act were disposed off by the Assessing Officer on 17/06/2014, wherein he stated that the fact of entry of professional work being bogus entry was not available with the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the assessment and it was re subsequently. As per the information no work was carried out by , as the said entity had no resources and manpower except for issuing bogus bills. Relevant part of the statement of Mr Praveen Agrawal was provided along with the reasons reco the assessee company. In this manner the Assessing Officer rejected the objection of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts truly Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s Taral for verifying whether actual work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly the Assessing Officer Grasim Industries Ltd. 7 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. ssessee that the transaction was genuine and properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company further submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts necessary for truly. The assessee company contended that proviso to section 147 is applicable in the case of the assessee and therefore notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. The objections raised by the assessee company against the notice under by the Assessing Officer on 17/06/2014, wherein he stated that the fact of entry of professional work being bogus entry was not available with the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the assessment and it was received subsequently. As per the information no work was carried out by , as the said entity had no resources and manpower except for issuing bogus bills. Relevant part of the statement of Mr Praveen Agrawal was provided along with the reasons recorded to the assessee company. In this manner the Assessing Officer rejected the objection of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all material facts truly issued notice under for verifying whether actual work was carried out, however the notice returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’. Accordingly the Assessing Officer requested the assessee company on 18/06/2014 said party alongwith the books of accounts as witness of the assessee company and explain the genuineness of the transaction. However no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee submitted that the obj ‘memorandum of association development of sites. It was submitted by the department had no documents material, therefore, bald statement of sh Praveen Agraw ignored. The assessee company furnished certificate from an independent structural engineer to support that actual work was carried out by the said party. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to produce sh Praveen Agrawal or any authori M/s Taral for cross examination 5.2 During the process of the reassessment proceedin section 147 of the Act information from the Assessing Officer of the material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized in the search of ‘ABMPCL accordingly, following due procedure of of the Act, 5.3 Thereafter, vide letter dated 23/11/2015, the ass submitted that the reassessment proceeding commenced under notice under section 148 of the Act dated 3/01/2014 got abetted in ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. requested the assessee company on 18/06/2014 party alongwith the books of accounts as witness of the assessee company and explain the genuineness of the transaction. However no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On the assessee submitted that the obj memorandum of association’ of M/s Taral include the business of development of sites. It was submitted by the department had no documents or evidences or any corroborating bald statement of sh Praveen Agraw ignored. The assessee company furnished certificate from an independent structural engineer to support that actual work was carried out by the said party. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to produce sh Praveen Agrawal or any authori for cross examination. During the process of the reassessment proceedin section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the assessee received information from the Assessing Officer of the material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized in the ABMPCL’. The Assessing Officer of the assessee following due procedure of law, issued notice u/s 153C Thereafter, vide letter dated 23/11/2015, the ass submitted that the reassessment proceeding commenced under notice under section 148 of the Act dated 3/01/2014 got abetted in Grasim Industries Ltd. 8 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. to produce the party alongwith the books of accounts as witness of the assessee company and explain the genuineness of the transaction. However no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. On the assessee submitted that the object clause of include the business of development of sites. It was submitted by the assessee, the or any corroborating bald statement of sh Praveen Agrawal might be ignored. The assessee company furnished certificate from an independent structural engineer to support that actual work was carried out by the said party. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to produce sh Praveen Agrawal or any authorised person of During the process of the reassessment proceedings under , the Assessing Officer of the assessee received information from the Assessing Officer of the ‘ABMPCL’ that material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized in the . The Assessing Officer of the assessee issued notice u/s 153C Thereafter, vide letter dated 23/11/2015, the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceeding commenced under notice under section 148 of the Act dated 3/01/2014 got abetted in view of the second provisio to the section 153A(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the reassessment proceeding are no more any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the Act would be bad in law. 5.4 The Assessing Officer accordingly 147 of the Act as 153A(1) of the Act. 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer assesseevide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 why the alleged professional fee of been paid to M/s Tara same should not be disallowed. The assessee 18/01/2016 relied on its submissions made submitted that payment of accounted in the books of in-Progress” and disclosed as a financial year 2007-08, thus there the assessee company for the assessment year under consideration on account of that transa contention of the assessee observing as under: (i) The notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act issued to M/s Taral returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t party, however the assessee failed in producing so. ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. view of the second provisio to the section 153A(1) of the Act. It was the reassessment proceeding are no more any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the be bad in law. The Assessing Officer accordingly, treated the proceedings u/s got abatedunder second provisio of section Thereafter, during proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer again ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 why the alleged professional fee of ₹10,53,83,193/ aral is treated as bogus expenditure and same should not be disallowed. The assessee vide submission dated 18/01/2016 relied on its submissions made earlier submitted that payment of ₹10,53,83,193/- to M/a accounted in the books of account under the head “ Capital Work Progress” and disclosed as asset in the balance sheet for 08, thus there was no impact on the profit of the assessee company for the assessment year under consideration transaction. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee observing as under: The notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act issued to returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce t party, however the assessee failed in producing so. Grasim Industries Ltd. 9 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. view of the second provisio to the section 153A(1) of the Act. It was the reassessment proceeding are no more valid and any order passed with reference to notice under section 148 of the proceedings u/s abatedunder second provisio of section , during proceedings under section again questioned the ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015, as 193/-shown to have is treated as bogus expenditure and why the ide submission dated earlierand further to M/a Taral was account under the head “ Capital Work- set in the balance sheet for no impact on the profit of the assessee company for the assessment year under consideration ction. The Assessing Officer rejected the The notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act issued to returned unserved with the remark ‘ not known’ and thereafter the assessee was asked to produce the said party, however the assessee failed in producing so. (ii) The evidence Kolkata established that said party had no resources to carry out the professional work accommodation entry were issued (iii) Sh Praveen Kumar Agrawal admitted that he was engaged in issuing accommodation entry bills through M/s Tara (iv) Making payment through banking channel was in itself not sufficient that actually work was carried out 5.5 The Assessing capital work-in-progress by assessee company would not be entitled to claim depreciation of the said amount in subsequent years “35.9 It is therefore held that of Rs. 10,53,83, 193/ is an accommodation entry and no actual work was carried out by M/s Taral. The Assessee Company has not claimed this payment as deduction in the AY 2008 the payment as "capital work in progress" in its Balance Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher depreciation allowance to the Assessee Company. Therefore the amount of "capital work in progress" incurred and carried forward to next year is reduced by the amount of Rs. 10,53,83,193/ entitled to claim depreciation allowance in the said amount or part of it in the subsequent years. 6. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to grounds raised by the assessee Rs.10,53,83,193/- as accommodation entry ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. The evidences gathered by the Investigation wing of the Kolkata established that said party had no resources to carry out the professional work, for which bills of accommodation entry were issued to the assessee. Sh Praveen Kumar Agrawal admitted that he was engaged in issuing accommodation entry bills through M/s Tara aking payment through banking channel was in itself not sufficient that actually work was carried out The Assessing Officer accordingly reduced the amount of progress by ₹10,53,83,193/-and held that the assessee company would not be entitled to claim depreciation of the said amount in subsequent years, observing as under: 35.9 It is therefore held that the payment of professional fee of Rs. 10,53,83, 193/- by the Assessee Company to M/s Taral is an accommodation entry and no actual work was carried out by M/s Taral. The Assessee Company has not claimed this payment as deduction in the AY 2008-09 and is c the payment as "capital work in progress" in its Balance Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher depreciation allowance to the Assessee Company. Therefore of "capital work in progress" incurred and carried forward to next year is reduced by the amount of Rs. 10,53,83,193/- and the Assessee Company will not be entitled to claim depreciation allowance in the said amount or part of it in the subsequent years.” On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to grounds raised by the assessee for rejection of capital work as accommodation entry, held as under: Grasim Industries Ltd. 10 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. nvestigation wing of the Kolkata established that said party had no resources to for which bills of to the assessee. Sh Praveen Kumar Agrawal admitted that he was engaged in issuing accommodation entry bills through M/s Taral. aking payment through banking channel was in itself not Officer accordingly reduced the amount of and held that the assessee company would not be entitled to claim depreciation of the observing as under: the payment of professional fee by the Assessee Company to M/s Taral is an accommodation entry and no actual work was carried out by M/s Taral. The Assessee Company has not claimed 09 and is carrying the payment as "capital work in progress" in its Balance Sheet. In subsequent years when this amount is capitalized it is added to the block of assets which has resulted in higher depreciation allowance to the Assessee Company. Therefore of "capital work in progress" incurred and carried forward to next year is reduced by the amount of Rs. and the Assessee Company will not be entitled to claim depreciation allowance in the said amount or On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) with reference to grounds rejection of capital work-in-progress of held as under: “22.17 In Para 35.4 of the assessment order, the A.O. has clearly noted that a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s Taral Vincom P. Ltd. / Link Infrastructure P.Ltd. to verify, whether any actually work was carried out or not. However, the Notice was received un Accordingly, the A.O., vide letter ref. DCIT6(3) /Mumbai/ notice/2014 18.06.2014 to produce the said Party along with books of account to explain the genuineness of the transaction. However, the Appellant Company has failed t the said party 22.18 Also, the findings of the AO are duly buttressed by the statement of Mr. m Praveen Aggarwal recorded by the Investigation Wing, which revealed that thetransaction was just an accommodati the saidstatement of Mr. Praveen Aggarwal was duly provided to the Appellant along with the reasons recorded for comments. Hence, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice during the course of th proceedings, on this issue. 22.19 In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of Revenue and thus, the action of the AO is upheld. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal No. 3 of the Appellant Co 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the details/documents filed during the course of the assessment proceedings, a copy of which is available on page 92 to 464 of the factual paper book. A copy of the statement of was also referred in the reason factual paper book. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee sought cross examination of Mr. Pravin however, no such cross examination w and therefore, no addition could survive in absence of opportunity for cross examination. Further, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 22.17 In Para 35.4 of the assessment order, the A.O. has oted that a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s Taral Vincom P. Ltd. / Link Infrastructure P.Ltd. to verify, whether any actually work was carried out or not. However, the Notice was received un-served with remarks "not known". Accordingly, the Appellant Company was requested by the A.O., vide letter ref. DCIT6(3) /Mumbai/ notice/2014 18.06.2014 to produce the said Party along with books of account to explain the genuineness of the transaction. However, the Appellant Company has failed toSea o produce, the said party for examination, before the A.O. Also, the findings of the AO are duly buttressed by the statement of Mr. m Praveen Aggarwal recorded by the Investigation Wing, which revealed that thetransaction was just an accommodation entry. It is also noted that the copy of the saidstatement of Mr. Praveen Aggarwal was duly provided to the Appellant along with the reasons recorded for comments. Hence, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice during the course of the assessment proceedings, on this issue. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of Revenue and thus, the action of the AO is upheld. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal No. 3 of the Appellant Company is dismissed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the details/documents filed during the course of the assessment copy of which is available on page 92 to 464 of the A copy of the statement of Mr. Pravin Aggarwal referred in the reason recorded, available on page 85 of the factual paper book. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee sought cross examination of Mr. Pravin , no such cross examination was provided and therefore, no addition could survive in absence of opportunity for cross examination. Further, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee Grasim Industries Ltd. 11 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 22.17 In Para 35.4 of the assessment order, the A.O. has oted that a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s Taral Vincom P. Ltd. / Link Infrastructure P.Ltd. to verify, whether any actually work was carried out or not. However, served with remarks "not known". Appellant Company was requested by the A.O., vide letter ref. DCIT6(3) /Mumbai/ notice/2014-15 dated 18.06.2014 to produce the said Party along with books of account to explain the genuineness of the transaction. oSea o produce, Also, the findings of the AO are duly buttressed by the statement of Mr. m Praveen Aggarwal recorded by the Investigation Wing, which revealed that thetransaction was on entry. It is also noted that the copy of the saidstatement of Mr. Praveen Aggarwal was duly provided to the Appellant along with the reasons recorded for comments. Hence, there is no violation of the principles of e assessment In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of Revenue and thus, the action of the AO is upheld. Accordingly, the Ground mpany is dismissed.” Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the details/documents filed during the course of the assessment copy of which is available on page 92 to 464 of the Mr. Pravin Aggarwal on page 85 of the factual paper book. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee sought cross examination of Mr. Pravin Aggarwal, as provided to the assessee and therefore, no addition could survive in absence of opportunity for cross examination. Further, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the reopening was resorted of sh Praveen Agarwal, h material/evidence has been provided to the assessee. Regarding the contention of the Assessing Officer in the form of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued unserved, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that producing Mr. Pravin Aggarwal witness of the Department. The Ld. Counsel further relied following decisions in support of preposition that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of notices u/s 133(6) unserved: (a) Tribunal decision in the case of ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv (ITA No. 5089/Mum/2014) (b) Tribunal Decision in the case of M/s Singhal Exim P Ltd Vs ITO ( ITA No. 6520/De/2018) 7.1 In support of the proposition that failure to produce parties cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learne following decisions: (a) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) (b) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G HC) (c) ITO Vs Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPiccholiya (ITA No. 4525 to 4528 /Mum/2014) Tribunal ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. submitted that the reopening was resorted based on the statement Agarwal, however, except the statement, no material/evidence has been provided to the assessee. Regarding the contention of the Assessing Officer in the form of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to concerned company M/s Tara he Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that producing Mr. Pravin Aggarwal was onus of the Department, since he was the witness of the Department. The Ld. Counsel further relied following decisions in support of preposition that additions cannot made merely on the basis of notices u/s 133(6) (a) Tribunal decision in the case of ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv (ITA No. 5089/Mum/2014) (b) Tribunal Decision in the case of M/s Singhal Exim P Ltd Vs ITO ( ITA No. 6520/De/2018) ort of the proposition that failure to produce parties cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learned cou CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPiccholiya (ITA No. 4525 to 4528 /Mum/2014) Tribunal Grasim Industries Ltd. 12 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. based on the statement statement, no other material/evidence has been provided to the assessee. Regarding the contention of the Assessing Officer in the form of notice u/s 133(6) o concerned company M/s Taral retuned he Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that producing since he was the witness of the Department. The Ld. Counsel further relied on the following decisions in support of preposition that additions cannot made merely on the basis of notices u/s 133(6) returned (a) Tribunal decision in the case of ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv (ITA (b) Tribunal Decision in the case of M/s Singhal Exim P Ltd Vs ITO ( ort of the proposition that failure to produce parties unsel relied on CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (Guj Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPiccholiya (ITA No. 4525 to (d) DCIT Vs M/s CMI PPE Ltd ( ITANo. 2316/Mum/2019) Mumbai Tribunal. 7.2. Further, before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed additional evidences from the site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Ld. Counsel submitted that this document might be admitted as additional evidence. He submitted that according to the website of Ministry of corporate affairs, the sa sheet up to 31/03/2022. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR referred to the various pages of the paper book which includes invoices/bills issued by the concerned company M/s Tara identical amount of quotations based on the identical measurement have been shown and which circumstances. He submitted that the documents in the case along with bills/invoices are without any proper verification by staff and genuineness 94 and 95 of the assessee’s factual paper book and submitted that one of the quotations submitted that there is no reference of VAT num contract tax number on said invoices. The learne referred to pages 101, 102 of the assessee’s paperbook and submitted that those papers only represent approval for road construction/leveling ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. DCIT Vs M/s CMI PPE Ltd ( ITANo. 2316/Mum/2019) Mumbai Tribunal. Further, before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed in the form of data of the company downloaded site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Ld. Counsel submitted that this document might be admitted as additional He submitted that according to the website of Ministry of corporate affairs, the said party is active and it has filed its balance sheet up to 31/03/2022. On the other hand, the Ld. DR referred to the various pages of the paper book which includes invoices/bills issued by the concerned company M/s Taral. He submitted that in all identical amount of quotations based on the identical measurement have been shown and which is impossible under the normal e submitted that the documents in the case along with bills/invoices are without any proper verification by staff and genuineness is doubtful. The learned DR referred to page 94 and 95 of the assessee’s factual paper book and submitted that one of the quotations is even handwritten. The learne there is no reference of VAT num contract tax number on said invoices. The learne referred to pages 101, 102 of the assessee’s paperbook and submitted that those papers only represent approval for road leveling and there was no work completion certifi Grasim Industries Ltd. 13 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. DCIT Vs M/s CMI PPE Ltd ( ITANo. 2316/Mum/2019) Further, before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed of data of the company downloaded site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Ld. Counsel submitted that this document might be admitted as additional He submitted that according to the website of Ministry of active and it has filed its balance On the other hand, the Ld. DR referred to the various pages of the paper book which includes invoices/bills issued by the . He submitted that in all those bills identical amount of quotations based on the identical measurement s impossible under the normal e submitted that the documents in the case along with bills/invoices are without any proper verification by the field DR referred to page 94 and 95 of the assessee’s factual paper book and submitted that even handwritten. The learned DR further there is no reference of VAT number or works contract tax number on said invoices. The learned DR further referred to pages 101, 102 of the assessee’s paperbook and submitted that those papers only represent approval for road and there was no work completion certificate ,therefore the documents submitted by the assessee do not subscribe to genuineness of the work by the said party. 9. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as merit of the additions is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer has mainly held the party as non-verifiable issued remained unserved and the assessee also failed to produce the said parties for verification of the claims of work carrie it. Since, before us, the assessee has filed current details/address of the party appearing on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Assessing Officer can make effort for issuing summon to the said party at the current address prov Since the assessee has claimed the said expenses, the primary onus is on the assessee to produce the said party and also to substantiate by way of evidences that actually work was carried out by the said party. The additional evidence iscrucial and goes to the root of the has submitted that the part website of the Ministry of corporate affairs, imperative to verify from the recor work was actually carried out. T restore this issue back to the file of the merit of the addition. from the assessing officer on the said additional evidence. ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. therefore the documents submitted by the assessee do not subscribe to genuineness of the work by the said party. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as merit of the additions is we find that the Assessing Officer has mainly held the verifiable in view of the reason that notice u/s 133(6) issued remained unserved and the assessee also failed to produce the said parties for verification of the claims of work carrie it. Since, before us, the assessee has filed current details/address of the party appearing on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Assessing Officer can make effort for issuing summon to the said party at the current address provided by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the said expenses, the primary onus assessee to produce the said party and also to substantiate by way of evidences that actually work was carried out . The additional evidence filed by the assessee to the root of the matter. The learne the party is alive on the address provided on the website of the Ministry of corporate affairs, therefore, imperative to verify from the records of the said party whether any work was actually carried out. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for deciding on the merit of the addition. If required, he may call for a remand report ssing officer on the said additional evidence. Grasim Industries Ltd. 14 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. therefore the documents submitted by the assessee do not subscribe to genuineness of the work by the said party. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as merit of the additions is we find that the Assessing Officer has mainly held the the reason that notice u/s 133(6) issued remained unserved and the assessee also failed to produce the said parties for verification of the claims of work carried out by it. Since, before us, the assessee has filed current details/address of the party appearing on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Assessing Officer can make effort for issuing summon ided by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the said expenses, the primary onus assessee to produce the said party and also to substantiate by way of evidences that actually work was carried out filed by the assessee matter. The learned Counsel alive on the address provided on the therefore, it is ds of the said party whether any herefore, we feel it appropriate to for deciding on the he may call for a remand report ssing officer on the said additional evidence. The ld CIT(A) or the AO in remand proceeding are inquiries as deemed fit for verification of the work done by the said party. The ground No. 2 allowed for statistical purposes. 9.1 Regarding the ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to the Revenue this is reassessment proceedings u/s 14 Assessing Officer by way of the time of issue of notice u/s 153C of the proceedings were pending and same got abated by way of issue of notice u/s 153C of th 9.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued itself is invalid and consequently in view of no valid proceedings u/s 148 of the Act pending, it was a case of completed assessment. The Ld. Cou the assessee has given two reasons for above contentions. 9.3 Firstly, according to him, the assessee has been requesting for a copy of approval granted of the Commissioner of Income u/s 151 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. CIT(A) or the AO in remand proceeding are it liberty to carry out the inquiries as deemed fit for verification of the work done by the said No. 2 of appeal of the assessee is according allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to is case of abated (pending) assessment reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by the by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and at the time of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, said proceedings were pending and same got abated by way of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued itself is invalid and consequently in view of no valid proceedings u/s 148 of the Act it was a case of completed assessment. The Ld. Cou the assessee has given two reasons for above contentions. according to him, the assessee has been requesting for a copy of approval granted of the Commissioner of Income u/s 151 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act Grasim Industries Ltd. 15 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. it liberty to carry out the inquiries as deemed fit for verification of the work done by the said of appeal of the assessee is accordingly Regarding the ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that assessment u/s 153C of the Act is in respect of completed assessment because assessment u/s completed on 25.03.2010, whereas notice u/s 153C of the Act is dated 26.11.2014. On the contrary, according to case of abated (pending) assessment, because of the Act were initiated by the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and at Act, said reassessment proceedings were pending and same got abated by way of issue of Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued itself is invalid and consequently in view of no valid proceedings u/s 148 of the Act it was a case of completed assessment. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has given two reasons for above contentions. according to him, the assessee has been requesting for a copy of approval granted of the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 151 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. He submitted that assessee has request officer in the course of CIT(A). He referred to page No. 90, 459, 460 465 631 and 676 of the factual Paper Book. the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vs ACIT reported in (2020) wherein it is held that the assessee is fully entitled to a copy of order passed under section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and when, the assessee seeksfor it. approval u/s 151, the proceedings u/s 147 are invalid and hence assessment for the year would not abate, thus, no addition could have been made without aid of incriminating material. 9.4 Secondly, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act available on page 85 to 86 of the factual paper book and submitted that reopening was resorted pursuant to the search premises of one Mr. Pravin Agarwal and statement recorded by Investigation wing of submitted that reassessment pursuant to the search conducted on the premises of third party can be made only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act at the premises of Shri Pravin Aggarwal is invalid in law. In support ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. that assessee has requested for the same before the Assessing in the course of 153C proceedings and also before the Ld. CIT(A). He referred to page No. 90, 459, 460 465 631 and 676 of the factual Paper Book. The learned Counsel relied on the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vs ACIT reported in (2020), 120 taxmann.com 431 (Allahabad) wherein it is held that the assessee is fully entitled to a copy of order passed under section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and when, the assessee seeksfor it. He submitted that in a approval u/s 151, the proceedings u/s 147 are invalid and hence assessment for the year would not abate, thus, no addition could have been made without aid of incriminating material. the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act available on page 85 to 86 of the factual paper book and submitted that reopening was resorted pursuant to the search conducted at the premises of one Mr. Pravin Agarwal and statement recorded by nvestigation wing of Income-tax department. The Ld. Counsel submitted that reassessment pursuant to the search conducted on premises of third party can be made only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the reassessment u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of a search conducted at the premises of Shri Pravin Aggarwal is invalid in law. In support Grasim Industries Ltd. 16 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. before the Assessing proceedings and also before the Ld. CIT(A). He referred to page No. 90, 459, 460 465 631 and 676 of the the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Deepak Gupta , 120 taxmann.com 431 (Allahabad) , wherein it is held that the assessee is fully entitled to a copy of order passed under section 151 of the Actand correspondingly, Assessing Officer is obliged to hand over a copy of the same, as and He submitted that in absence of approval u/s 151, the proceedings u/s 147 are invalid and hence assessment for the year would not abate, thus, no addition could have been made without aid of incriminating material. the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act available on page 85 to 86 of the factual paper book and submitted that conducted at the premises of one Mr. Pravin Agarwal and statement recorded by . The Ld. Counsel submitted that reassessment pursuant to the search conducted on premises of third party can be made only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the reassessment on the basis of a search conducted at the premises of Shri Pravin Aggarwal is invalid in law. In support of this contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:  Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT (189 IT  ITO v. Arun Kumar Kapoor (50 SOT 87) (Amritsar T.)  Mr. Nilesh Bharani v. DCIT (ITA No. 612/Mum/2020) 9.5 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee accordingly contended that since notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law, the consequent assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act being in respect of a completed assessment, therefore, no addition could have been made in the order u/s 153C of the Act on any new issue other than the issue arising out of incriminating material. He submitted that neither the addition of Rs.10,53,83,193/ work in progress nor the disallowance in relation to additional depreciation of Rs.24,35,82,219/ incriminating material. 9.6 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee assailed the on one more ground despite several request made by the furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which is essential for invoking the provisions of section 153C of t the assessee’s letter dated 17.12.2014 requesting for copy of satisfaction and material based on on the assessee. He also referred to page 64 of the factual Paper Book, which is a letter dated 10.03.2013 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. of this contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT (189 ITD 401) (Vizac T.) ITO v. Arun Kumar Kapoor (50 SOT 87) (Amritsar T.) Mr. Nilesh Bharani v. DCIT (ITA No. 612/Mum/2020) The Ld. Counsel of the assessee accordingly contended that since notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law, the consequent proceedings u/s 153C of the Act being in respect of a completed assessment, therefore, no addition could have been made in the order u/s 153C of the Act on any new issue other than the issue arising out of incriminating material. He submitted that the addition of Rs.10,53,83,193/- for disallowance of capital work in progress nor the disallowance in relation to additional depreciation of Rs.24,35,82,219/- is arising out of any incriminating material. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee assailed the assessment order on one more groundi.e.third ground or reason.He submitted that despite several request made by the assessee, the Department never furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which is essential for invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act. He referred to the assessee’s letter dated 17.12.2014 requesting for copy of satisfaction and material based on which notice 153C was served . He also referred to page 64 of the factual Paper letter dated 10.03.2013 requesting for providing Grasim Industries Ltd. 17 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. of this contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions D 401) (Vizac T.) ITO v. Arun Kumar Kapoor (50 SOT 87) (Amritsar T.) Mr. Nilesh Bharani v. DCIT (ITA No. 612/Mum/2020) The Ld. Counsel of the assessee accordingly contended that since notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law, the consequent proceedings u/s 153C of the Act being in respect of a completed assessment, therefore, no addition could have been made in the order u/s 153C of the Act on any new issue other than the issue arising out of incriminating material. He submitted that isallowance of capital work in progress nor the disallowance in relation to additional is arising out of any assessment order e submitted that the Department never furnished a copy of the satisfaction note which is essential for he Act. He referred to the assessee’s letter dated 17.12.2014 requesting for copy of 153C was served . He also referred to page 64 of the factual Paper requesting for providing copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel further referred to page 67 of the factual Paper Book which is letter dated 08.07.2015 of the assessee where the same request was reiterated. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer in pa observed that there was no requirement in law to provide a copy of satisfactory note to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel of on the other hand, relied on following decisions to support the contention that sati assessee:  Karthik Krishna v. DCIT (146 taxmann.com 466) (Kar HC)  M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. v. ACIT (I.T.(SS).A. Nos. 171, 172 and 174/Ind/2008)  Janki Exports International v. UOI (278 ITR 296) (Del HC) 9.7 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in absence of a copy of the satisfaction note and a copy of the Commissioner’s approval being not furnished to the should have been drawn the Act. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the fact of approval of the relevant authority taken for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is already mentioned in the said itself. He further submitted that while filing objecti proceedings, the assessee nowhere challenged this fact that notice issued was without any approval further submitted that it is the assessee ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel further referred to page 67 of the factual Paper Book which is letter dated 08.07.2015 of the assessee where the same request was reiterated. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer in para 8 of the impugned assessment order observed that there was no requirement in law to provide a copy of satisfactory note to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel of on the other hand, relied on following decisions to support the contention that satisfaction note ought to be furnished to the Karthik Krishna v. DCIT (146 taxmann.com 466) (Kar HC) M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. v. ACIT (I.T.(SS).A. Nos. 171, 172 and 174/Ind/2008) Janki Exports International v. UOI (278 ITR 296) (Del HC) The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in absence of a copy of the satisfaction note and a copy of the Commissioner’s approval being not furnished to the assessee, adverseinference should have been drawn against assessment completed On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the fact of approval of the relevant authority taken for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is already mentioned in the said . He further submitted that while filing objecti proceedings, the assessee nowhere challenged this fact that notice issued was without any approval under section 151 further submitted that it is the assessee, who asked the Assessing Grasim Industries Ltd. 18 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. copy of satisfaction note. The Ld. Counsel further referred to page 67 of the factual Paper Book which is letter dated 08.07.2015 of the assessee where the same request was reiterated. On the other hand, ra 8 of the impugned assessment order observed that there was no requirement in law to provide a copy of satisfactory note to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand, relied on following decisions to support the sfaction note ought to be furnished to the Karthik Krishna v. DCIT (146 taxmann.com 466) (Kar HC) M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. v. ACIT (I.T.(SS).A. Nos. 171, Janki Exports International v. UOI (278 ITR 296) (Del HC) The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in absence of a copy of the satisfaction note and a copy of the Commissioner’s assessee, adverseinference against assessment completed u/s 153C of On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the fact of approval of the relevant authority taken for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is already mentioned in the said notice . He further submitted that while filing objection to the 148 proceedings, the assessee nowhere challenged this fact that notice 151 of the Act. He who asked the Assessing Officer to treat the reassessment proceeding under 147 of the abated. The DR also submitted that at the stag of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the proceedings u/s 148 were pending before the AO and he can’t visualize at that stage it might be invalid. It was also submitted that validity of Act on issue of approval letter u/s 151 has been challenged for the first time before the ITAT and not adjudicated by the ld CIT(A), therefore, the matter should be sent ba DR without prejudice to the above requested the field authoritiesfor u/s 151 of the Act granted. 10.1 Secondly, on the issue of appropriate remedial action on the basis of the information received in respect of search at the premises of Mr. Pravin Aggarwal, submitted that since no material pertaining to the assessee search at the third party i.e. Mr. Pravin remedial action had Act only. He accordingly submitted that proceedings u/s 147 of the Act being validly initiated and being pending as on the date of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessment order passe Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act is a valid assessment order. On the issue of copy of the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act the Ld. DR produced a photocopy before the Bench and provided the same to the Ld. A ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. Officer to treat the reassessment proceeding under 147 of the The DR also submitted that at the stag of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the proceedings u/s 148 were pending before the AO and he can’t visualize at that stage it might be It was also submitted that validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act on issue of approval letter u/s 151 has been challenged for the first time before the ITAT and not adjudicated by the ld CIT(A), therefore, the matter should be sent back to the ld CIT(A). DR without prejudice to the above, further submitted that he had authoritiesfor tracinga copy of such approval u/s 151 of the Act granted. Secondly, on the issue of appropriate remedial action on the sis of the information received in respect of search at the premises of Mr. Pravin Aggarwal, submitted that since no material assessee was found during the course of the search at the third party i.e. Mr. Pravin Aggarwal, therefore had been taken validly invoking section 147 of the Act only. He accordingly submitted that proceedings u/s 147 of the Act being validly initiated and being pending as on the date of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessment order passe Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act is a valid assessment order. On the issue of copy of the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act the Ld. DR produced a photocopy before the Bench and provided AR. Grasim Industries Ltd. 19 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. Officer to treat the reassessment proceeding under 147 of the Act as The DR also submitted that at the stag of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the proceedings u/s 148 were pending before the AO and he can’t visualize at that stage it might be challenged as notice u/s 148 of the Act on issue of approval letter u/s 151 has been challenged for the first time before the ITAT and not adjudicated by the ld CIT(A), ck to the ld CIT(A). The Ld. further submitted that he had copy of such approval Secondly, on the issue of appropriate remedial action on the sis of the information received in respect of search at the premises of Mr. Pravin Aggarwal, submitted that since no material was found during the course of the Aggarwal, therefore, been taken validly invoking section 147 of the Act only. He accordingly submitted that proceedings u/s 147 of the Act being validly initiated and being pending as on the date of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act is a valid assessment order. On the issue of copy of the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act, the Ld. DR produced a photocopy before the Bench and provided 11. We have heard rival su dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has raised validity of the impugned Act.We takeup the thi adjudication. 12. As far as 3 rd reason of challenge to assessment the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is concerned, in view of copy of the satisfaction note provided by the Ld. DR, the issue no longer survives and accordingly. We reject the challenge to validity of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act on this ground. 13. Now, we take up second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act. 13.1 As far as the second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act is concerned, the Ld. Counsel of t basis of information received from Shri Pravin Aggarwal, reassessment could have been initiated only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act. We find that 153C proceedings could be initiated only when during search or any valuable article is found to be belonging to assessee or any material documentary evidence or other material found to be pertaining to the assessee or any information contended therein is ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that raised three grounds or reasonschallenging impugned assessment order passed u/s 153C of the the third reason or ground of challenge first for reason of challenge to assessment the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is concerned, in view of copy of the satisfaction note provided by the Ld. DR, the issue no longer survives and accordingly. We reject the challenge to validity of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act on this ground. take up second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act. As far as the second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act is concerned, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that on the basis of information received from Shri Pravin Aggarwal, reassessment could have been initiated only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act. We find that 153C proceedings could be initiated only when during search at third party, any cash jewellery or any valuable article is found to be belonging to assessee or any material documentary evidence or other material found to be pertaining to the assessee or any information contended therein is Grasim Industries Ltd. 20 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. bmission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that grounds or reasonschallenging the passed u/s 153C of the rd reason or ground of challenge first for reason of challenge to assessment proceedings by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is concerned, in view of copy of the satisfaction note provided by the Ld. DR, the issue no longer survives and accordingly. We reject the challenge to validity of take up second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act. As far as the second reason for challenge to validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act is he assessee submitted that on the basis of information received from Shri Pravin Aggarwal, reassessment could have been initiated only u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act. We find that 153C proceedings could be at third party, any cash jewellery or any valuable article is found to be belonging to assessee or any material documentary evidence or other material found to be pertaining to the assessee or any information contended therein is found related to the asses case of ITO vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia in Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 held the amendment brought to section 153C of the Act by way of finance Act, 2015 received from search a statement and other material , which were pertaining to Shri Pravin Aggarwal only and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act could not have been initiated/invoked in the hands of the assessee on said material. The challenge of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for invalidating the present proceedings u/s 153C on this reasonis accordingly rejected. In our opinion on such information from Pravin Aggarwal only valid recourse was to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the learn distinguishable as same are any asset belonging to an assessee or material pertaining to an assessee is found during the search of the third party. 14. Now, we take up the first reason of challenge Counsel of the assessee under section 153C of the Act. 14.1. The first reason of challenge of the approval for reassessment grante authority u/s 151 of the Act, thus assessment was no longer abated and hence no addition could have been made otherwise than the aid of the incriminating material ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. found related to the assessee. The Hon’ble supreme court in the case of ITO vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia in Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 held the amendment brought to section 153C of the Act by way of finance Act, 2015 as retrospective. Since, the information received from search at the Shri Pravin Aggarwal was based on his statement and other material , which were pertaining to Shri Pravin Aggarwal only and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act could not have been initiated/invoked in the hands of the assessee on l. The challenge of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for invalidating the present proceedings u/s 153C on this reasonis accordingly rejected. In our opinion on such information from Pravin Aggarwal only valid recourse was to issue notice u/s 148 of The decisions relied upon by the learn distinguishable as same are on the facts of the specific case where any asset belonging to an assessee or material pertaining to an assessee is found during the search of the third party. ake up the first reason of challenge Counsel of the assessee to validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act. reason of challengeis thatin absence of providing copy of the approval for reassessment granted by the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act, notice u/s 148 of the Act thus assessment was no longer abated and hence no addition could have been made otherwise than the aid of the incriminating material Grasim Industries Ltd. 21 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. . The Hon’ble supreme court in the case of ITO vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia in Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 held the amendment brought to section 153C of the Act by Since, the information t the Shri Pravin Aggarwal was based on his statement and other material , which were pertaining to Shri Pravin Aggarwal only and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act could not have been initiated/invoked in the hands of the assessee on l. The challenge of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for invalidating the present proceedings u/s 153C on this reasonis accordingly rejected. In our opinion on such information from Pravin Aggarwal only valid recourse was to issue notice u/s 148 of The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are n the facts of the specific case where any asset belonging to an assessee or material pertaining to an assessee is found during the search of the third party. ake up the first reason of challenge by the Ld. to validity of the assessment proceedings in absence of providing copy d by the appropriate notice u/s 148 of the Act is invalid, and thus assessment was no longer abated and hence no addition could have been made otherwise than the aid of the incriminating material. In the case dispute is regarding abatement of assessment and not on the issue of existence of incriminating material qua the addition. We find that the assessee has requested before the lower authorities from time to time for providing of copy of such ap 151 of the Act. However, assessee has not been provided such copy of the approval. The Bench also provide the copy of the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. us, the learned department representati a very old matter, relevant records of the Department of not at place, hence some more time was required. He was allowed of more than one month approval letter. He made an alter restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer asking him to produce a copy of the approval letter issued under section 151 of the Act. He submitted that assessment ma technical reason that approval granted under section 151 of the Act could not be readily traced due to jurisdiction of the case from one Commissioner of income tax to another. He submitted th available in the office of the additional Commissioner of income ( i.e Range head) Administrative) , which will be traced out and submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) , if matter is restored back . confident of availability of ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In the case dispute is regarding abatement of assessment and not on the issue of existence of incriminating material qua the addition. find that the assessee has requested before the lower authorities from time to time for providing of copy of such approval letter u/s 151 of the Act. However, assessee has not been provided such copy of the approval. The Bench also specifically asked the Ld. DR to provide the copy of the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. us, the learned department representative submitted that this being a very old matter, relevant records of the Department of not at some more time was required. He was allowed more than one month, still he could not produce copy of such approval letter. He made an alternative plea that matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer asking him to produce a copy of the approval letter issued under section 151 of the Act. He submitted that assessment may not be knocked out only for the technical reason that approval granted under section 151 of the Act could not be readily traced due to matter being old and change of jurisdiction of the case from one Commissioner of income tax to He submitted that copy of the approval letter might be available in the office of the additional Commissioner of income or in the Commissioner of the Income , which will be traced out and submitted before the atter is restored back . He reiterated that he was availability of such approval. Grasim Industries Ltd. 22 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In the case dispute is regarding abatement of assessment and not on the issue of existence of incriminating material qua the addition. find that the assessee has requested before the lower authorities proval letter u/s 151 of the Act. However, assessee has not been provided such copy asked the Ld. DR to provide the copy of the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. Before ve submitted that this being a very old matter, relevant records of the Department of not at some more time was required. He was allowed a period still he could not produce copy of such native plea that matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer asking him to produce a copy of the approval letter issued under section 151 of the Act. He y not be knocked out only for the technical reason that approval granted under section 151 of the Act old and change of jurisdiction of the case from one Commissioner of income tax to at copy of the approval letter might be available in the office of the additional Commissioner of income-tax or in the Commissioner of the Income-tax ( , which will be traced out and submitted before the He reiterated that he was 14.2 In our opinion, the matter cannot be deferred for a period before us. This issue of challenge of validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been raised for the first time before us and not raised before the lower authorities. evidence furnished by the assessee have restored the matter back to the file of the ld in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue, which is a matter of file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. He the assessing officer and verify copy of the approval granted under section 151 of the Act. If such an approval is found to be in existence, then he shall provide a copy of the same to the assessee. If no such approval for issue is found, then Ld. CIT(A) may decide validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act in accordance with law. 15. In view of our discussion, assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 16. The ground No. assessee and therefore same are dismissed as infructuous. 17. The Revenue in its appeal in ground No. 1 and 2 raised the issue that no disallowance u/s of unabated assessment without aid of any incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In our opinion, the matter cannot be deferred for a This issue of challenge of validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been raised for the first time before us and not raised before the lower authorities. We note that in view of the additional evidence furnished by the assesseeon the issue of the merit, w have restored the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue, which is a matter of determination of file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. He may call for the assessing officer and verify copy of the approval granted under section 151 of the Act. If such an approval is found to be in existence, then he shall provide a copy of the same to the assessee. If no such approval for issue of notice under section 148 of the is found, then Ld. CIT(A) may decide validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act in accordance with law. In view of our discussion, ground No. one of the appeal of the allowed for statistical purposes. . 3 and 4 of the appeal were not pressed by the assessee and therefore same are dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue in its appeal in ground No. 1 and 2 raised the issue that no disallowance u/s 153C of the Act can be made in case of unabated assessment without aid of any incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Grasim Industries Ltd. 23 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In our opinion, the matter cannot be deferred for an indefinite This issue of challenge of validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act has been raised for the first time before us and not raised in view of the additional on the issue of the merit, we CIT(A), therefore in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to determination of fact, to the may call for a report from the assessing officer and verify copy of the approval granted under section 151 of the Act. If such an approval is found to be in existence, then he shall provide a copy of the same to the assessee. of notice under section 148 of the Act is found, then Ld. CIT(A) may decide validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act in accordance with law. No. one of the appeal of the not pressed by the assessee and therefore same are dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue in its appeal in ground No. 1 and 2 raised the 153C of the Act can be made in case of unabated assessment without aid of any incriminating material. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “18.30 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and judicial precedents, I am of the are completed Us 1430) do not abate. Further, proceedings U/. 153C r.w.s. 153A do not empower the AO to re same issues again, unless fresh material is found in the course of search which has some connection with t issues. The assessing authority cannot disturb the assessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of search, establishes that the income computed in the finalized assessment was not in accordance with t search. 18.31 Respectfully following these binding decisions, it is held that the completed proceedings us 143(3) will not abate and the AQ is directed to follow the order of the CIT(A) and consider the same, while c The proceedings u/s 153C are not parallel proceedings and do not give power to the AO to re issues.Accordingly, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the Appellant. 18. We have heard rival submission dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is settled law that in case of unabated assessment no addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer without aid of the incriminating material found during the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd.(370 ITR 643). assessment abetted or Ld. CIT(A), therefore, Revenue are accordingly for deciding afresh. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 18.30 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and judicial precedents, I am of the view that assessments which are completed Us 1430) do not abate. Further, proceedings U/. 153C r.w.s. 153A do not empower the AO to re-adjudicate the same issues again, unless fresh material is found in the course of search which has some connection with t issues. The assessing authority cannot disturb the assessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of search, establishes that the income computed in the finalized assessment was not in accordance with the facts unearthed during the course of 18.31 Respectfully following these binding decisions, it is held that the completed proceedings us 143(3) will not abate and the AQ is directed to follow the order of the CIT(A) and consider the same, while computing taxable income us 153C. The proceedings u/s 153C are not parallel proceedings and do not give power to the AO to re-adjudicate the issues.Accordingly, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the Appellant.” We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is settled law that in case of unabated assessment no addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer without aid of the incriminating material found during the course of the search as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing (370 ITR 643). Since, the issue assessment abetted or not, has been restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground No. 1and 2 and of the appeal of the accordingly restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) fresh. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes Grasim Industries Ltd. 24 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 18.30 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and view that assessments which are completed Us 1430) do not abate. Further, proceedings U/. adjudicate the same issues again, unless fresh material is found in the course of search which has some connection with the said issues. The assessing authority cannot disturb the assessment order which has attained finality, unless the material gathered during the course of search, establishes that the income computed in the finalized assessment was not he facts unearthed during the course of 18.31 Respectfully following these binding decisions, it is held that the completed proceedings us 143(3) will not abate and the AQ is directed to follow the order of the CIT(A) and omputing taxable income us 153C. The proceedings u/s 153C are not parallel proceedings and do adjudicate the issues.Accordingly, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It is settled law that in case of unabated assessment no addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer without aid of the incriminating course of the search as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Since, the issue in the case of has been restored back to the file of the of the appeal of the restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) fresh. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes 19. In the ground No. 3 deletion of the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing reason that revenue had filed SL Court. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already adjudicated and upheld the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra), in the decision in the case of Ltd (149 taxmann.com 399). decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is concerned, same depends on the factual finding of whether the assessment was abetted or not. Since said issue the file of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical 20. The other grounds raised by the Revenue are gene and therefore same are dismissed as infructuous. 21. Both the parties agreed that t assessee and Revenue in cross appeals for assessment year 2009 10 and 2010-11 are identical 2008-09 and therefore, same are decided mutatis mutandis. ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In the ground No. 3 and 4, the Revenue has challenged deletion of the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) mainly due to the reason that revenue had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already adjudicated and upheld the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation n the decision in the case of PCIT Vs AbhisarBuildwell P Ltd (149 taxmann.com 399). But as far as applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is concerned, same depends on the factual finding of whether the assessment was abetted or not. Since said issue has already been restored the file of the Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating appeal of the assessee, , the ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. The other grounds raised by the Revenue are gene and therefore same are dismissed as infructuous. Both the parties agreed that the grounds raised by the assessee and Revenue in cross appeals for assessment year 2009 11 are identical or consequential to assessment year 09 and therefore, same are decided mutatis mutandis. Grasim Industries Ltd. 25 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. and 4, the Revenue has challenged deletion of the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. mainly due to the P before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already adjudicated and upheld the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation T Vs AbhisarBuildwell P But as far as applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is concerned, same depends on the factual finding of whether the assessment was n restored by us to while adjudicating appeal of the assessee, , the ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are The other grounds raised by the Revenue are general in nature he grounds raised by the assessee and Revenue in cross appeals for assessment year 2009- to assessment year 09 and therefore, same are decided mutatis mutandis. 22. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/05/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical nounced in the open Court on 31/05/2023. Sd/ KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Grasim Industries Ltd. 26 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical /05/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai