Rajeev Chawla, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 371/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7358 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHAND
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Salary income; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 132; 15; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-371/DEL /2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005- 06) RAJEEV CHAWLA, B-5, MADHUBAN, DELHI. AALPC1215G VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 18, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY SHRI PRATAP GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAMESH CHAND, CIT(DR) ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)S-XXXII, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07/10/2014 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER P ASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS VALID ORDER WHICH SUFFERS F ROM VARIOUS IRREGULARITIES IN THE EYE OF LAW WHICH REND ERS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AS VOID-AB-INITIO. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FAC TS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,000 /- DATE OF HEARING 08.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.01.2016 2 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF PROPERTY R ECEIVED BY APPELLANT, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN ABSEN CE OF ANY ADVERSE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND MORE PARTICULA RLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, AGAINST THE LOSS OF RS. 23,889/- DECLA RED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FAC TS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 24(A) OF RS. 16,860/- OF THE I.T. ACT FROM INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND MORE PARTICULARLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FAC TS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF STANDARD DEDUCTION OF RS. 30,000/- U/S 16(1) OF THE I.T. ACT FROM SALARY INCOME, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 15 3A OF THE I.T. ACT IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE AND MORE PARTICULARLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES WHEN THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 5. APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE, ADD, DE LETE, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPER ATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WERE UNDERTAKEN AT VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREM ISES OF ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA & GROUP AND OTHER BENEFICIARIES GROUP O F CASES ON 26.3.2010. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT SHRI A.K. GUPTA WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO SEVERAL BENEFICIARIES WITH THE HELP OF SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS OPEN IN THE NAME OF SEVERAL P ROPRIETARY 3 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 CONCERNS AND COMPANIES IN WHICH EITHER HE HIMSELF O R HIS EMPLOYEES WERE DIRECTORS OR PROPRIETORS. THE SEARCH AND SURV EY COVERED THE PREMISES OF SHRI A.K. GUPTA, SEVERAL ASSOCIATES/EMP LOYEES OF SHRI A.K. GUPTA, SEVERAL INTERMEDIATORY COMPANIES AND SO ME BENEFICIARIES INCLUDING THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTI CE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS SHOWN IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AO COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS; I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A) RS. 48,410/- II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STANDARD DEDUCTION RS. 30,000/- III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. RS. 2,25,000/- 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A.) THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153 READ WITH SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT BESIDES OTHERS ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO INCRI MINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONCUR WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE HIM. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 4 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 2.2. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA VS. ACIT I N ITA NOS. 1682/D/13, ITA NO. 1683/D/13, ITA NO. 5087/D/12, IT A NO. 1698/D/13, ITA NO. 1683/D/13 FOR ASSTT. YEARS 2004- 05, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ORDER DATED 1 7.02.2015. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR CHAWL A(SUPRA), BEING THE BROTHER OF ASSESSE HEREIN, ISSUE REGARDIN G VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON IDENTICAL FACTS. TH E LD. AR REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THAT MERELY BECAUSE A SEARCH HAS BE EN CARRIED OUT U/S 132, A NOTICE U/S 153A FOR REASSESSMENT OF INCO ME CANNOT BE ISSUED IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FO UND RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF HIS PRE MISES AND THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SEC. 139 OF THE ACT WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC. 143(1) AND NO STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. 3.1. IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION, THE LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS IN SUPPORT: I) AL-CARGO GLOBAL LOGESTIC LTD. VS. ACIT 137 ITD 287(MUM.)- (S.B); II) DCIT VS. DEVI DAYAL PETRO-CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. ITA NOS.5430 TO 5436/DEL/2013, C.O. NOS. 83 TO 88/DEL/14 DATED10.9. 2014; III) SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCIT 346 ITR 177; IV) KUSUM GUPTA VS. DCIT ITA NO. 4873/DEL/2009 DT .28.3.2013; 5 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 V) ACIT VS. ASHA KATARIA ITA NO. 3105/DEL/2011 DA TED 20.5.2013; VI) SANJAY AGGARWAL VS. DCIT ITA NO. 3184/DEL/201 3 DT.16.2.2014; VII) JAI STEEL INDIA VS. ACIT 259 CTR 281 (RAJ.); & VIII) CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA 352 ITR 493 (DEL. ). 3.2 ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED OF FINDING OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 153A READ WITH SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A ND THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AT TH E PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 132 OF THE ACT. 3.3. IN SUPPORT, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. FILA TEX INDIA LTD. ITA NO. 269/2014 D ATED14.7.2014 (DEL.); II) CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. DCIT ITA N O. 38/2014 DATED 25.7.2014 (KARNATAKA). 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 153A READ WITH SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN ABS ENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 153A IS INVALID AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING. 6 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 4.1. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED I S AS TO WHETHER THE SCOPE OF 153A, ENCOMPASSES ADDITIONS, NOT BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. 4.2. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE SPL. BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTIC LTD. VS. CIT REPOR TED IN 137 ITD 287 (MUM.) (SB) AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA REPORTED IN (2012) 211 TAXMANN 453 (DEL.) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN SUPPORTS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.3. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF THIS TRIB UNAL CITED BY THE LEARNED AR, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN TH EREIN, SUPPORTS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE. 4.4. IN THE CASE OF KUSUM GUPTA (SUPRA) ALSO THE RE TURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND IT WAS HELD THAT NO ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING IN THAT CASE AND THUS THE RE WAS NO QUESTION OF ABATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WOULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS RECENT DECISION ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 23 .5.2014 HAS EXPRESSED THE SIMILAR VIEW. THE DECISION THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA HAS BEEN CONFIMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED IN (2015) 61 TAXMAN.COM 412 . IT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (2012) 211 TA XMANN 453 7 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 (DEL.), WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 8 & 9 IN THIS REGARD IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 8. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT IF BOTH T HE PENDING AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WERE TO BE TAKEN O N SAME PEDESTAL, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO ENSHRINE S ECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 153A(1) PROVIDING THAT THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS SHALL ABATE. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) DEALT WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF A NON- PENDING ASSESSMENT. IT WAS IN THAT BACKGROUND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SEC. 153A APPLIES IF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND EVEN IF ASSESSMENTS ARE COMPLETED. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ANY ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND, WAS APPARENTLY LE FT OPEN. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT IN DIRECT HINTS GIVEN BY THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) ABOUT NOT MAKING OF ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS ALREADY COMPLETED UNLESS SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH. THIS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT:- '20. A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO HOW THIS IS SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED WHERE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF ALL OR ANY OF THOSE SIX ASSESS MENT YEARS, EITHER UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OR SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. IF SUCH AN ORDER IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, HAVING OBVIOUSLY BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF TH E SEARCH/REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWE RED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INC OME, TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEA RTHED DURING THE SEARCH. 9. THE ABOVE EXTRACTED OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH ARE THOUGH OBITER DICTA, MAKE THE POIN T CLEAR THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PAS SED 8 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 FOR A YEAR(S) WITHIN THE RELEVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YE ARS, THEN ALSO THE A.O IS DUTY BOUND TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDI NGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME BUT BY 'TAKING NOTE O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEA RCH'. THE EXPRESSION 'UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH' IS QUI TE SIGNIFICANT TO DENOTE THAT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED OR NON- PENDING ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALBEI T DUTY BOUND TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME BUT TH ERE IS A CAP ON THE SCOPE OF ADDITIONS IN SUCH ASSESSMENT, B EING THE ITEMS OF INCOME 'UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH'. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DETERMINATION OF 'TOTAL INCOME' IN RESPE CT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS ARE ALRE ADY COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, SHALL NOT BE INFLU ENCED BY THE ITEMS OF INCOME OTHER THAN THOSE BASED ON THE M ATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THERE IS NOT AND CANNOT BE ANY QUARREL OVER THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OPTION BUT TO DETERMINE TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT S IX ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, THE SCOPE OF SUCH DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME IS DIFFERENT IN RESPE CT OF THE YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS ARE PENDING VIS-VIS THE YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE NON-PENDING. IN RES PECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE DETERMINED BY RESTRICTING ADD ITIONS ONLY TO THOSE WHICH FLOW FROM INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IF NO INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL IS FOUND IN RESPECT OF SUCH COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, THEN THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A SHALL BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING THE ORIGINALLY DETERMINED I NCOME. IF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PENDING, THEN THE 'TOTAL INCOME' WOULD BE DETERMINE D BY CONSIDERING THE ORIGINALLY DETERMINED INCOME PLUS I NCOME EMANATING FROM THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE OTHER SCENARIO OF THE ASSE SSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WOULD ABATE IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 153A( 1), THE TOTAL INCOM E SHALL BE COMPUTED AFRESH UNINFLUENCED BY THE FACT WHETHER OR NOT 9 ITA NO. 37 1/DEL/2015 THERE IS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN FACT, THIS IS THE POSITION WHICH FOLLOWS WHEN WE READ THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPR A) IN JUXTAPOSITION TO THE SPECIAL BENCH ORDER IN THE CAS E OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. (SUPRA). THE OTHER JUDG MENT RELIED BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF MADUGULU VENU ( SUPRA) ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE NEED FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSME NT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSES SMENTS ARE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH BUT DOES NOT SET OUT THE SCOPE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS THE ISSUE BE FORE USE. 4.5. WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA ( SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN ADDITION U/S 1 53A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREUNDER. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE CAS ES OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. DCIT (SUPRA) OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND FILATEX INDIA P. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVING DISTINGUISHABLE FAC TS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4.6. WE, THUS, REITERATE THAT IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO ADDITION CAN B E MADE IN A CASE WHERE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY FRAMED O N THE DATE WHEN SEARCH TOOK PLACE. 4.7. IN ABSENCE OF REBUTTAL OF THIS MATERIAL FACT B Y THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THAT NO INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THESE YEARS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSM ENT BASED ON 10 ITA NO. 3 71/DEL/2015 THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SEC. 139 OF THE ACT WAS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, WE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS BY THE LEARNED AR DISCUSSED ABOVE HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED UNDER SEC. 153A READ WITH SEC. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT VALID AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY HELD AS NULL AND VOID. THE RELATED GROUND ON THE ISSUE IS THUS ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, WHEREBY THE ASSES SMENT ITSELF HAS BEEN HELD NULL AND VOID, THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OTHER GROUNDS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE ADDITIONS MADE DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC ONLY. THESE GROUNDS THUS DO NOT REQUIRE AN Y ADJUDICATION. THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF AS SUCH. 16. IN RESULT, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.01. 2016 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15.01.2016 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 11 ITA NO. 3 71/DEL/2015 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.12.15 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.12.15 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15.01.2016 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.01.2016 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.