ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Jakson Ltd., Noida

ITA 6067/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7928 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J K MI SHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: UMANG UPPAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Search and seizure; Tax effect
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 14A; 80IB; 133(6); 201; 143(2); 43; 13; 32; 131; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.6066, 6067/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 & 2014-15 ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI. V. M/S. JAKSON LIMITED, A-43, PHASE-II, NOIDA EXTENSION, NOIDA. TAN/PAN: AAACJ5347C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.6068/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI. V. M/S. JAKSON ENGINEERS LTD. A-43, PHASE-II, NOIDA EXTENSION, NOIDA. TAN/PAN: AAACJ5347C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI J.K. MISHRA, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VED JAIN & MS. UMANG UPPAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 14 01 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 01 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.09.2016 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 2 IN SO FAR AS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012- 13 AND 2014-15 ARE CONCERN, THE TAX EFFECT IN BOTH THE APP EALS ARE BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.50 LAC IN VIE W OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019. HE HAS FILED A SEPARATE TAX CALCULATION WHEREIN THE TAX ON DISPUTE D AMOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS RS.24,12,788/- A ND RS.32,91,299/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 3. LD. DR ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS MUCH BELOW RS.50 LACS. 4. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 201-13 AND 2014-15 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN SO FAR AS APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE CASE OF M/S. JACKSON ENGINEERING LTD. IN ITA NO.6066/DEL/2016, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,83,96,122/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 6. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.139(1) ON 30.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,40,63,460/-. A SEARCH AND SEI ZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN JAKSON GROUP OF CASES U/S.1 32 ON 30.10.2013. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISSUED ON 22.09.2014 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING INCOME OF RS.47,40,63,460/-. LD. ASS ESSING I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 3 OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF VARIOUS PARTIES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION FROM WHOM PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUM OF RS.10 LACS. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAD FU RNISHED THE DETAILS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTIC ES TO 39 PARTIES AND IN RESPECT OF ONE PARTICULAR PARTY, NAM ELY, M/S. NEW JAIN SPARES, REPLY COULD NOT BE RECEIVED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATED THE PURCHASES M ADE FROM M/S. NEW JAIN SPARE SUM OF RS.1,83,96,122/- AS BOGU S PURCHASES. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A, BECAU SE THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA, (2017) 325 ITR 526. APART FROM THE LEGAL ISSUE, ON MERITS ALSO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE NOTICES ISSUED U/S.133(6) TO M/S. NEW JAIN SPARES WAS RESPO NDED LATE BY THE SAID PARTY AND THE SAID PARTY HAS FILED ITS REPLY ON 19.04.2016 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES LIKE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT; INCOME TAX RETURN, VAT RETURN, BANK STATEMENT IN PEN DRIVE . LD. CIT (A) IN SO FAR AS VALIDITY OF THE ADDITION WITHIN TH E SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S.153A HAS OBSERVED THAT SAME WAS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 4 (A). HOWEVER, ON MERITS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.4 GROUND NO.08 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 201 2- 13 OF M/S. JAKSON LTD. AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 OF M/S. JAKSON ENGINEERS LTD. AND GROUND NO.4 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 OF M/S. JAKSON LTD. RELATE TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S. NE W JAIN SPARES. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE MATTER ARE THAT THE AO, VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DT. 12.10. 2015, ASKED THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM PER SONS FROM WHOM PURCHASES ABOVE RS. 10,00,000/- WERE MADE AND THE AO SIMULTANEOUSLY ISSUED LETTERS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THESE PERSONS AND THEREAFTER VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 23.02.2016 THE AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE SO ME OF THE 39 PARTIES FROM WHOM REPLIES WERE NOT RECEIVED, BUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS NOT LISTED THE PART IES IN RESPECT OF WHOM REPLIES WERE NOT RECEIVED. THE APPE LLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE AOS LETTER DT. 23.02.201 6 IN RESPECT OF AY 2008-09 TO 2014-15 AT PAGE- 41 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB) AND AT PAGES-77 TO 79 OF THE PB FOR M/S JAKSON ENGINEERS LTD. WHEREIN THE AO HAS LISTED 39 PARTIES IN BOTH THE CASES AND ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION FROM WHOM REPLIES WERE NOT RECEIVED. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DT. 11.03.2016 IN ALL THESE CASES THE AO ASKED THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY PURCHASES MADE FROM FIVE PARTIE S BE NOT CONSIDERED AS BOGUS. THOUGH THE AO HAS NOT DISC USSED I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 5 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPARENTLY IN TERMS OF THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND SUBMISSIONS OF CONFIRMATION OF AC COUNTS, INVOICES AND PAYMENT DETAILS WITH BANK STATEMENT CO PIES THE AO ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES FROM 38 PARTIES IN AL L THESE CASES. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE FROM M/S NEW JAIN SPA RES (NJS) THE APPELLANT HAD REPLIED BEFORE THE AO ON 29.03.2016 THAT THIS PARTY WAS NOT COOPERATIVE WITH THEM AND WAS NOT WILLING TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION/DET AILS, DULY MENTIONED AT PARA 4.4 PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER, AND THEREFORE THE AO TREATED THE PURCHASE FROM NJS AS B OGUS IN BOTH THE CASES AND IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. T HUS, THE PURCHASE FROM NJS HAS EFFECTIVELY BEEN TREATED AS B OGUS PRESUMABLY ONLY DUE TO NON-CONFIRMATION FROM NJS IN SPITE OF ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELL ANT BEFORE THE AO INCLUDING COPY OF INVOICES, PAYMENT DOCUMENT S WITH BANK STATEMENT COPY AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BOOKS ? THE APPELLANT, VIDE ITS REPLY DT. 29.02.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO ALSO MENTIONED THAT NOT ONLY THE PAYMENTS ARE TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, NJS WAS DULY REGISTERED WITH VAT AUTHORITIES AND WERE FILING THAT RETURNS REGULARLY AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) AND 13 1 WERE DULY RECEIVED BY NJS AND THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO F ILE THE DETAILS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE RE PLY OF NJS SUBMITTED TO THE AO AND I DULY RECEIPTED ON 19. 04.2016 IN THE AOS OFFICE CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANTS ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, ITR, VAT RETURN AND BANK STATEMENT IN PEN DRIVE. THUS, EVEN THE I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 6 PURCHASE FROM THE 39TH PARTY, NJS, STANDS CONFIRMED THOUGH RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO AFTER 31ST MARCH, BUT THIS IS SIGNIFICANT SINCE THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OU T ANY OTHER DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT OR PAY MENT AGAINST THE PURCHASES FROM NJS AND THERE IS NO ADVE RSE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD EXCEPT FOR THE NON-RECEI PT OF REPLY FROM NJS. THE APPELLANT HAS OTHERWISE ARGUED THAT W HEN THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) AND 131 OF THE ACT WERE DULY SERVED ONLY BECAUSE NJS DID NOT SUBMIT REPLY TO THE AO IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT NJS WAS NON-EXISTENT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND THAT THE PURCHASES FROM THEM WERE BOGUS FOR WHICH THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ORISSA CORPN. 159 ITR 78 (SC). I AM INCLINED TO AGR EE WITH THE APPELLANTS AR ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4.4.2 IT IS PERTINENT TO KNOW THAT THE APPELLANTS A RE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL DG SETS FOR WHICH THEY ARE PURCHASING VARIOUS RAW MATERIAL AND SPARE PARTS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS. THE APPELLANT HAS PUR CHASED PUMP FOR C/N/K SERIES AND B SERIES, EOT CRANE, VCB PANEL, NGR PANEL, HT TRANSFORMER, HEAT OVEN, AIR COMPRESSOR, GRINDER, MLG/ARC WELDING MACHINE, HYDRAULIC PALLET, INSTLATERIAL-N MATERIAL AND VARIO US OTHER ITEMS AS PER THE INVOICES OF NJS FILED WITH PBS WHI CH ARE UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MANUFACTURING AND ASSEMBLY OF ELECTRIC DG SETS, THE END PRODUCT OF TH E APPELLANT, AND THE APPELLANT IS NOT TRADING IN THES E ITEMS, I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 7 AND THEREFORE WITHOUT BRINGING OUT ANY ADVERSE MATE RIAL AND ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT EQUIVALENT AND COMMENSUR ATE DG SETS WERE NOT MANUFACTURE BY THE APPELLANT IT CA NNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT PURCHASES OF SUCH MATERIAL WAS NOT M ADE. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE TOTAL SALES OF THE ELE CTRICAL DG SETS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.831.27 CRORE, RS.739.31 CRORE, RS.628.07 CRORE AND RS.238.65 CRORE AGAINST PURCHAS ES OF MATERIAL/SPARES OF RS.715.80 CRORE , RS.630.55 CROR E, RS. 175.30 CRORE AND RS.205.27 CRORE IN THE CASE OF THE TWO APPELLANTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHIL E PURCHASE DISALLOWED IS RS.1.04 CRORE RS. 1.84 CRORE , RS.0.61 CRORE AND RS.0.74 CRORE ONLY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TRADING IN THE ITEMS PURCHASED FROM NJS AND THAT PURCHASES FROM NJS WERE UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT FOR INFLATING EXPENSES AN D SUPPRESSING THE PROFITS. IN FACT, AS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANTS AR, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE FI NDING THAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SALES THEREOF AS PER THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANTS ARE NOT GENUINE NOR HAS HE GIVEN ANY ADV ERSE FINDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THE PURCHASE S THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ARE NOT GENUINE AND HE HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4.4.3 . THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAI LS OF TOTAL PURCHASES AND THE PURCHASES FROM NJS IN TH E PRECEDING YEARS IN THE CASE OF M/S JAKSON LTD. WHIC H HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND IS SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER: I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 8 AY TOTAL PURCHASE S PURCHASES FROM NJS ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A/143(3) DT. 26.11.2012/30.11.2016 PURSUANT TO SEAR CH ON 10.02.2010 2004 - 05 163.03 1.47 ONLY ADDITION U/S 14A 2005 - 06 205.94 0.56 ONLY ADDITION U/S 14A 2006 - 07 294.82 2.18 ONLY ADDITION U/S 14A 2007 - 08 431.55 2.31 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 14A AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP SALE. 2008 - 09 4 65.15 1.18 SAME AS AY 2007 - 08 2009 - 10 473.97 1.56 ONLY ADDITION U/S 14A 2010 - 11 581.77 2.05 ONLY ADDITION U/S 14A IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN REGULAR LY PURCHASING MATERIAL FROM NJS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS , PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO BANKING CHANNELS AND EVE N THE OUTSTANDING PAYMENT OF PRECEDING YEAR WAS PAID IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, AND SINCE AY 2004-05 TILL AY2010-1 1 THE PURCHASES FROM NJS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSM ENTS MADE U/S 153A/143(3) ON 30.12.2011 PURSUANT TO THE EARLIER SEARCH ON 10.02.2010 BY THE SAME AO. 4.4.4. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASES FROM LJS IN BOTH THE CASES IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DELETED. 8. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. VED JAIN SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY HERE IN THIS CASE THE ASS ESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS NOT PENDING AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND HAD ATTAINED FINALITY, BECAUSE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.09.2012 AND TILL 30.09.2013 NO NOTI CE U/S I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 9 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED. THUS, IN ABSENCE OF A NY NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2), THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME HAS A TTAINED FINALITY. FURTHER, ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF BOGU S PURCHASES, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE, AND THEREFORE, SUCH AN ADDITION WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A R.W.S. 2 ND PROVISO THERETO HAS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA, (2017) 325 ITR 526. ON MERITS, HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ONCE TH IS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON MER ITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REPLY SENT BY THE PARTY WAS RECE IVED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND T HEREFORE, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY BECAUSE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET ANY OPPORTUNI TY AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IN SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY OF ADDITION OF RS.1,83,96,122/- IS CON CERNED, ON THE GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, SAME IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S.153A, WE FIND THAT THOUGH T HE SAID GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER IT WAS NOT I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 10 PRESSED, ALTHOUGH, LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDI TION ON MERITS. EVEN THOUGH THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED LEGAL GROUND OR HAS NOT PRESSED, BUT THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE ANY LEGAL ISSU E AND HE CAN VERY WELL CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON LEGAL GROUND IF THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ADDITION IS EITHER WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROVISIO N OF THE ACT. THUS BEING A LEGAL ISSUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY F ETTER THAT SAME CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EVEN IF THE SAID GROUND HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED ESPECIALLY WHEN TH E SAID ISSUE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS A ND IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORDS AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM RAISING THE LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE US. A DMITTEDLY AND FROM THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION ALBEIT SAME HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ALREADY ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, I. E., ON 30.10.2013, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AND WAS NOT PENDING ASSESSMEN T. THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A IT CANNOT BE RECKONED AS ABATED ASSESSMENT. NOW IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT IN THE CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENT, ADDI TION OVER I.T.A. NO.6066, 6067 & 6068/DEL/2016 11 AND ABOVE THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT CAN ONLY BE MADE I F ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN UPHELD AN D REITERATED IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA AND MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA) . ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ARE HELD TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A AND SAME ARE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JANUARY, 2020 PKK: