AI Insights
The case involves a series of appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. concerning the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2018-19. The appeals were based on the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertained to share application money received by the assessees. The primary contention was whether the additions were justified given that the share application money had already been taxed in the hands of the respective share applicants. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions under section 153A, the circumstances of the search, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the additions were not justified and dismissing the appeals.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113119 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-06-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
05-06-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
05-03-2023
Judgement Text
I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 34/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.......Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,.....Respondent 26, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [PAN:AABCB0881C] -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 35/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.......Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.,...............Respondent 26, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [PAN:AADCN9575H] I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 2 -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 36/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.,...............Respondent 26, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [PAN:AADCN9575H] -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 37/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Limited,...........................Respondent 15 th Floor, Room No. 1512, Diamond Heritage, 16, Strand Road, Fairley Place, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AACCN0208J] -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 38/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 3 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Limited,..........................Respondent 15 th Floor, Room No. 1512, Diamond Heritage, 16, Strand Road, Fairley Place, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AACCN0208J] -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 39/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Limited,..........................Respondent 15 th Floor, Room No. 1512, Diamond Heritage, 16, Strand Road, Fairley Place, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AACCN0208J] -AND- I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 40/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.......Appellant Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 4 -Vs.- Narsingh Ispat Limited,..........................Respondent 15 th Floor, Room No. 1512, Diamond Heritage, 16, Strand Road, Fairley Place, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AACCN0208J] Appearances by: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT (DR), appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Mrs. Puja Somani, C.A. & Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assesseee Date of concluding the hearing : June 06, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : June 09, 2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present bunch of seven appeals is directed at the instance of Revenue against separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 dated 27 th December, 2022 passed on the respective appeals of respondents/assessees in IT(SS)A Nos. 34 to 39/KOL/2013 for assessment years 2018-19, 2013-14, 2014-15 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and dated 12 th January, 2023 passed in IT(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 for assessment year 2018-19. Since common issues are I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 5 involved in all these appeals, therefore, we heard them together and deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 2. Ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in each appeal reads as under:- IT(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.5,20,60,073/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” . IT(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.1,58,00,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” IT(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.1,89,00,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” IT(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 6 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.19,14,50,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” IT(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.9,99,96,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” IT(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.9,71,30,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” IT(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is justified without going into merits of the case and deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.14,54,24,000/- ignoring the facts that AO has made the additions based on the facts as all the limbs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not satisfied in this case” 3. First we take IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39 of 2023. The facts on all vital points are common, therefore, for the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 7 facility of reference, we take the facts from IT(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 03.01.2022 declaring total income amounting to Rs.6,130/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) on 30.06.2017. A search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 29.01.2021 in the case of Narsingh Group. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, during the course of search operation, various documents, papers and electronic media were seized. Consequently he issued a notice under section 153A of the Act, which was issued on 27.10.2021. Similar notices were issued in all the cases and all the assessees have filed their returns of income, which are equivalent to the amount disclosed in the return filed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. In other words, these amounts are equivalent to the one disclosed in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. The details are being tabulated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in his submissions filed before us, which read as under:- “The assessees filed their return of income in compliance of notice issued u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 8 declaring same total income as declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The incomes disclosed by the assessees are as under:- Sr. No. Respondent- Assessee A.Y. Total income filed in ITR 1. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2012-13 1,74,09,340/- 2. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2013-14 2,12,96,960/- 3. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2014-15 1,44,94,040/- 4. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2018-19 6,47,55,183/- 5. Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited 2013-14 6,130 6. Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited 2014-15 13,50,540/- 7. Bakshiram Uderam Holding Pvt. Limited 2018-19 3,28,260/- 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) in the case of each assessee and thereafter issued questionnaire under section 142(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that assessees have received share application money from various parties. The details of such share application money received by the assessee in the case of respective assessee has been tabulated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submissions filed in the Tribunal and we take note such details from the submissions:- I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 9 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 10 6. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter made reference to the statement of one Shri Mukesh Banka recorded in some other investigation on 31.05.2018. He also referred that he had issued summons under section 131 to Shri Mukesh Banka on 11.02.2022 for personal appearance on 18.02.2022 at 2:30 p.m. for recording his statement, but he did not appear. Thereafter according to the ld. Assessing Officer, a letter was issued to the assessee- company to produce him but he was not produced for examination/cross examination. The assessee has filed submissions explaining the position of share application money. We would revert to these submissions while dealing the issues on merit, if required, but for the time being, it is not necessary to take into consideration the submissions filed by the assessee and summarise in a tabulated form by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in his submissions at this stage. The ld. Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee treated all these share application money as unexplained one and made the additions. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 11 7. Dissatisfied with the additions, the assessee carried the dispute before the ld. 1 st Appellate Authority. They have submitted that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found, which can empower the ld. Assessing Officer to take cognizance under section 153A. The ld. Assessing Officer is harping upon the statement of certain third person recorded during the course of some investigation in some other proceedings. The ld. 1 st Appellate Authority has called a remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer, which has been noticed in paragraph no. 4.3(a) on page no. 9 of the impugned order. On an analysis of the evidence in detail, ld. Commissioner recorded a finding that no incriminating material was unearthed during the course of search, which can justify of taking cognizance under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly he deleted the additions. 8. The ld. CIT(DR) while impugning the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) relied upon the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer. He submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer must have considered the material available before him in the form of appraisal report or other circumstances. He made reference to the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka, though recorded in some other investigation, but he admitted I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 12 before the Investigating Agency that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries and the companies, from whom the assessee had availed the benefit of share application money, were shell companies. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer has considered sufficient material before disbelieving the genuineness of the share capital raised by these assessees. He relied upon the assessment orders in all these years. 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessees has filed written submissions running into 27 pages. He took us through section 153A and thereafter explained the scope of this section and made reference to paragraph no. 10.2 of his submissions. While dealing with the position of law as canvassed by the representative, we will make reference to the submissions raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing as well as in the written submissions filed before the Tribunal. 10. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 153A including the amendment effected by Finance Act, 2017 whereby 4 th proviso has been included in the Statute Book has a direct bearing on the controversies. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 13 Therefore, we take note of this section, which reads as under:- “153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years; PROVIDED THAT the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate : PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso), specify the class or classes of cases in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 14 issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years: PROVIDED ALSO THAT no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless- (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. EXPLANATION 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “relevant assessment year” shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. EXPLANATION 2.-For the purposes of the fourth proviso, “asset” shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 15 PROVIDED THAT such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,- (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year”. 11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through this section apprised us its scope as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited reported in 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) (copy placed on record). He also made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vipin Khanna –vs.- CIT reported in 255 ITR 220 (PH). According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, this section has two compartments. The first compartment deals with the situation upto 2 nd proviso of the section. This compartment provides that section 153A applies to a person in respect of whom search is initiated under section 132 of the Act, or whose books of account, other documents or any asset are requisitioned under section I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 16 132A after May 31, 2003. The second proviso attached with this section further contemplates that the assessments/reassessments, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years, which are pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall stand abate. It was further submitted that the second proviso also provides that if on the date of initiation of search or requisition under section 132 or under section 132A of the Act, any assessment/reassessment proceedings relating any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending, then the pending proceeding shall stand abated and fresh assessment of the same can be done under section 153A of the Act. It is also emphasized that if no proceeding was pending on the date of the search, then, the proceeding for that year stand concluded and such search shall have no impact on the concluded proceeding. Thus this proviso was enacted specifically to avoid two parallel proceeding of assessment of a particular year of the same person, i.e. one regular assessment proceeding under section 143(3) /147 of the Income Tax Act, vis-a-vis another assessment proceeding under section 153A of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further explained the meaning I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 17 of expression “abatement”. This expression would mean that something is to be eliminated or suspended, defeat, nullify of pending action. Thus a plain reading of second proviso would suggest that if the assessment or reassessment, which is pending on the date of initiation of search, shall only abate. Therefore, what will abate are only the pending assessment or reassessment and not the completed assessment. This proviso i.e. second, would not lead to any abatement of those assessments, which have already been concluded and are not pending on the date of search. The next question, which would pose before us is, what to be construed as pending. The expression “pending” would mean that where some proceeding has been initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer. We will amplify this proposition while taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect. In other words, if no proceedings are pending, namely in a regular assessment year, the time limit to issue notice under section 143(2) expired and no reassessment proceeding is pending, then it is to be construed that assessment in that year is completed. In such situation, it has been laid down that those assessments would not be tinkered with unless incriminating material exhibiting the escapement of income unearthed found during the course of search. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 18 Thus the power given by the 1 st proviso to assess income for six assessment years has to be confined to the undisclosed income unearthed during the course of search by way of a seized material or documents etc. 12. There was lot of controversy on the scope and interpretation of the first compartment of the section 153A, but now this controversy has been finally silenced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited. Before adverting to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the two decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts namely CIT –vs. Kabul Chawla of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Saumya Construction of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. 13. First we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v-vs.- Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del.). Hon’ble Delhi High Court after detailed analysis has summarized the following legal position: On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: (i)Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(l) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 19 to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. (ii) Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such A.Y.s will have to be computed by the AOs as afresh exercise. (iii) The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". (iv) Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." (v) In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 20 (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. (vi) Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 14. Now we take note of the relevant part of the Hon’ble High Court’s decision in the case of Saumya Construction. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court framed the following question of law in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction (supra): "(a) Whether the order of Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made in assessment made u/s 153A of the Act? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition should be based on the incriminating material found during the course of search under new procedure of assessment u/s 153A which is different from earlier procedure u/s 158BC r.w.s. 158BB of the Act and by reading into the section, the words 'the incriminating material I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 21 found during the course of search' which are not there in section 153A? (c) Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on the ITAT order in Sanjay Aggarwal v. DCIT (2014) 47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT- IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 15. Hon'ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: "16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 22 mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153 A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 18.11.2010. In terms of section 153B, the assessment was required to be completed within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the search came to be carried out, namely, on or before 31st March, I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 23 2012. Here, insofar as the impugned addition is concerned, the notice in respect thereof came to be issued on 19.12.2011 seeking an explanation from the assessee. The assessee gave its response by reply dated 21.12.2011 calling upon the Assessing Officer to provide copies of statements recorded on oath of Shri Rohit P. Modi and Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi during the search as well as the copies of the documents upon which the department placed reliance for the purpose of making the proposed addition as well as the copy of the explanation given by Shri Rohit P. Modi and Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi regarding the on-money received, copies of the assessment orders in case of said persons and also requested the Assessing Officer to permit him to cross-examine the said persons. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the said persons, however, they were out of station and it was not known as to when they would return. In this backdrop, without affording any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the said persons, the Assessing Officer made the addition in question. 18. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that any incriminating material in respect of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.l 1,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 24 statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, however, it is on the basis of some material collected by the Assessing Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 25 the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed." 16. It is also pertinent to note that, in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its concluding paragraph has observed that, on the date of the search, the assessments for assessment years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 already stood completed and the returns in these years were accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act and these acceptance of returns processed under Section 143(1) of the Act was construed by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as completion of assessments and as acceptance of return, according to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 26 could be tinkered with if some incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee. 17. The position of law in other decisions referred by the Id. Counsel for the assessee is identical; particularly we have considered the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited has concurred with both these decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts. The relevant part of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision reads as under:- “As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A, the assessment or re-assessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 27 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to subsection (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ for the entire six years period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 28 incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO can assess or reassess the income/total income taking into consideration the other material is accepted, in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall not be permissible under the law. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue is accepted, in that case, second proviso to section 153A and subsection (2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 29 For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) In case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 30 respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No Costs”. 19. In the light of above, let us consider the facts of the present appeals. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has tabulated the date of filing of the return under section 139 and the time limit available for issuance of a notice under section 143(2) to scrutinise the returns of assessee. Such details read as under:- I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 31 Sr. No. Respondent-Assessee A.Y. Date of filling ITR Last date of issuing order 143(2) 1. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2012-13 26.09.2012 Assessment Order was passed on 12-03-2015 2. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2013-14 30.09.2013 30.09.2014 3. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2014-15 21.11.2014 30.09.2015 4. Narsingh Ispat Limited 2018-19 15.10.2018 30.09.2019 5. Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd 2013-14 22.09.2013 30.09.2014 6. Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd 2014-15 27.10.2014 30.09.2015 7. Bakshiram Uderam Holdings (P) Ltd 2018-19 03.10.2018 30.09.2019 20. The search upon the assessee was conducted on 29.01.2021 meaning thereby all these assessments attained their finality because the returns have been processed under section 143(1). At the cost of repetition, we would like to emphasize that in the case of Kabul Chawla, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its concluding paragraph has observed that on the date of the search, the assessments for A.Ys. 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 already stood completed and the returns in these years were accepted under section 143(1) meaning thereby the Hon’ble High Court has emphasized that if 143(2) notice for scrutinising the return was not issued that would be construed as completion of the assessment proceeding under section 143(1) and it can only be tinkered if during the course of search, some incriminating material was found. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 32 21. A perusal of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) on page no. 9 of paragraph no. 4.3(a) would reveal that during the appellate proceeding, ld. Assessing Officer had again asked to refer to the record and to point out incriminating material, which might have been discovered during the search proceeding. In response to the above letter of the ld. CIT(Appeals), ld. Assessing Officer has submitted his remand report in the letter dated 01.12.2022. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has reproduced such letter on pages no. 9 to 16 of the impugned order. While evaluating this remand report, ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that ld. Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint any material found during the course of search which has unearthed the receipt of share application money not disclosed in the books or in the regular returns. The assessees have received the share application money in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year but those were to be construed as accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer by not scrutinizing the return under section 143(2). The acceptance of the share application money in a constructive manner by the Revenue cannot be revisited under section 153A by again analysing that very material as if ld. Assessing Officer is passing a regular assessment. Whatever evidence the Assessing Officer has referred, it was available much prior to the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 33 date of the search. The last statement referred by him is of Mukesh Banka, which was also recorded on 30.05.2018 much prior to the search, but after that statement, no action was taken by the Revenue. Therefore, under the first limb of argument and on the strength of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of PCIT –vs.- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited, these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 22. However, during the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessees emphasized on the second limb of argument, which flows from the second compartment of section 153A. At the cost of repetition, we would like to take note of section 153A from 4 th proviso again, which read as under:- “Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless- (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. EXPLANATION 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “relevant assessment year” shall mean an I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 34 assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. EXPLANATION 2.-For the purposes of the fourth proviso, “asset” shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: PROVIDED THAT such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,- (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year”. 23. In his second fold of submission, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that by Finance Act, 2017, the legislature has extended the scope of section 153A. He submitted that earlier ld. Assessing Officer was empowered to make assessment or reassessment of six assessment years prior to the year of search as provided I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 35 under section 153A(1) of the Act. With the help of 4 th proviso of section 153A, power of making assessment or reassessment under section 153A has been extended upto earlier ten years prior to the year of search in certain specific circumstances. It was submitted by him that the proceedings for extended period can be initiated under section 153A of the Act if ld. Assessing Officer has, in his possession, books of account or other documents or evidence, which showed that the income represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to the amount of Rs.50 lakhs or more in the relevant assessment years. The power of ld. Assessing Officer to make assessment or reassessment for additional three years is conditional and it is available on fulfilment of two conditions, namely – (a) The undisclosed income is represented in the form of some assets and; (b) quantum of such undisclosed income should not be less than Rs.50 lakhs. 24. The second explanation appended to the 4 th proviso would further provide definition of expression ‘asset’. The asset will include immovable property being land or building or both, shares & securities, loans and I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 36 advances, deposits in Bank accounts. Therefore, according to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer cannot initiate proceeding under section 153A unless he is satisfied with regard to the availability of all conditions enumerated in this section. In the present case, the ld. Assessing Officer has not demonstrated his satisfaction either in the notice under section 153A or in the assessment order. He also emphasized that even in the assessment proceeding, ld. Assessing Officer could not provide details of such assets, which were came to the possession of the revenue during the course of search enabling him to take cognizance under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. While buttressing these propositions flowing from second compartment of section 153A, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Guwahati Bench dated 10.12.2021 in the case of ACIT –vs.- Goldstone Cements Limited rendered in ITA Nos. 126 to 131/GAU/2020 (copy placed on record). 25. The ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, submitted that neither this plea was raised by the assessee before the ld. Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(Appeals), because no discussion is discernable from the impugned orders. He further submitted that a perusal of section 153A I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 37 would indicate that it does not contemplate recording of any satisfaction for issuing notice under section 153A. The moments search is carried out of an assesse, he is empowered to issue notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the assessment years, i.e. six years as well as relevant assessment years extended by way of 3 rd proviso introduced in Finance Act, 2017. 26. We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. A bare perusal of second compartment of section 153A would indicate that by way of Finance Act, 2017, the Parliament has extended the scope of section 153A and its scope has been extended from earlier six assessment years immediately preceding assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted, or requisition is made to the relevant assessment years and the definition of relevant assessment year has been provided in Explanation (1) of 4 th proviso to section 153A. The relevant assessment year shall mean an assessment year proceeding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made, which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 38 assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus the scope of this section has been extended upto ten years. The earlier assessment under section 153A could be made of search year plus six earlier years. Now it can be made search year plus nine earlier years meaning thereby the number of years would be ten. Therefore, basically this relevant assessment year is to be construed three years. It is pertinent to observe that search was conducted on 29 th January, 2021.Thus under the 1 st compartment, the assessment years would fall from A.Y. 2015-16 and upto the search year onwards. The relevant years are the years i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. In these years notice under section 153A could only be issued if conditions enumerated in clauses no. (a), (b) & (c) of the proviso within the meaning of definition of “assets’ provided in Explanation (2) of the section. As far as construction of the language employed in sub-clause (a), (b) & (c) of 4 th proviso and its meaning, vis-a-vis scope is concerned, i.e. not in much dispute. 27. The dispute before us is, whether ld. Assessing Officer has ever formulated his opinion by identifying the asset, which was found during the course of search and I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 39 whose value is more than Rs.50 lakhs, is undisclosed income, therefore, a notice under section 153A for extended period of relevant years can be issued. During the course of hearing, decision of ITAT in the case of ACIT –vs.- Goldstone Cements Limited rendered in ITA No. 126 to 131/GAU/2020 was referred. Copy of this decision is available on page no. 60 of the case law paper book. In paragraph no. 8.6 to 8.10, Tribunal has made a lucid enunciation of law and expounded that before taking action under section 153A, there should be a foundation, namely existence of the undisclosed asset valued at Rs.50 lakhs or more ought to have discovered during the search qua the assessee. This discovery of asset as mentioned in 2 nd Explanation to 4 th proviso of section 153A is a jurisdictional fact and before taking action under section 153A, the fulfilment of this jurisdictional fact ought to be demonstrated. Though in the Act or in the Income Tax Rules, no procedure has been laid down exhibiting, as to how opinion is to be formulated by the ld. Assessing Officer showing that he has in possession of material unearthed during the course of search demonstrating the fact that asset having value of more than Rs.50 lakhs has escaped assessment. This aspect would contemplate two mode of action, one may be construed as a procedural and the other is to be I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 40 strict manner for exercising the powers. Even though there is no procedure laid down either in the Income Tax Act or provided in the Rules. The ld. Assessing Officer ought to have provide the assessee, during the assessment proceedings as to how he formed his opinion for assessing him under section 153A for the relevant assessment years, namely extended period of assessment years under the 4 th proviso. Unless this seized material exhibiting discovery of assets having value of more than Rs.50 lakhs is being shown to the assessee, action under section 153A could have not been initiated. 28. In the present sets of appeal, the question is whether share application money received by the assessee in the accounting year relevant to these A.Ys and shown in the books of account could be termed as undisclosed asset unearthed during the course of search. Though from the assessment order, it is not discernable what has weighed with the ld. Assessing Officer to harbour the believe for issuing the notice under section 153A, but if we make a speculation, then that is to be construed that ld. Assessing Officer has termed share application money received by the assessee duly I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 41 disclosed in the regular books of account and could be scrutinised in regular assessment as undisclosed income. This is an incorrect appreciation of jurisdictional fact and on the basis of this plea, action against the assessee cannot be justified. Therefore, we are of the view that the notice under section 153A for the extended year ought to have not been issued. These appeals of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2014-15 in the cases of all these assessees deserve to be dismissed for this additional fold of reasoning advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. This second-fold of contention raised by the assessee is allowed. 29. Though we are not supposed to record findings on merit. But the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed written submissions and also raised arguments on merits also. His written submissions are reproduced as under:- 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, even on merits additions cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has discussed in detail as to why additions should not be made u/s 68 of the Act as all the credits in the books of the assessee are explained credits, refer para 8 of the submissions wherein the assessee has discussed in detail the source of share capital raised by the respondent - assessees in the subject assessment years. The summary of assessment year wise additions and the source of such credits is summarized below: I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 42 4.1 Narsingh Ispat Limited - AY 2012-13 Share Applicant Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd. 10,52,00,000 Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd 8,62,50,000 19,14,50,000 Same additions have already been made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04-03-2015. Adding the same again in 153A proceedings will tantamount to double addition of the same amount, refer page 108-113 of the paper book. To support this contention of the assessee, reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs CIT pronounced on 19-04-2018 wherein it was held that, “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Furthermore, a taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for the payment of tax on the taxpayer unless the language of the Statute is so compelling that the court has no alternative than to accept it. In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the taxpayer is to be adopted. So, it is clear enough that the income in the present case is taxable only under one law. By virtue of clause (k) to Article 37 IF of the Constitution which starts with a non-obstante clause, it would be clear that only the Sikkim Regulations on Income-tax would be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the income cannot be brought to tax any further by applying the rates of the IT Act. Hence, the entire addition made in the hands of Narsingh Ispat Ltd for AY 2012-13, being double additions is liable to be deleted. 4.2 Narsingh Ispat Ltd and Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd (AY 2013-14 and 2014-15) I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 43 There are common shareholders in both these companies for these assessment years. The synopsis of the share application money received in these years is tabulated below: No Share Applicants Assessment Years Share Application Money received by assessee group during the year Source of share application money already taxed by the respective AO Source found genuine by the respective AO. 1 Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd. 2013-14 1,28,05,000 14,84,00,000 2 Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd 2013-14 and 2014-15 1,02,65,000 5,85,00,000 3 Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd 2013-14 4,68,00,000 15,51,00,000 4 Innova Tie-up Private Limited 2013-14 67,55,000 13,31,00,000 5 VedantVincom Pvt Ltd 2013-14 and 2014-15 5,94,50,000 6,28,00,000 6 Everlite suppliers Pvt Ltd 2013-14 1,27,71,000 11,39,00,000 7 Reliable Commodeal Pvt Ltd 2014-15 7,16,80,000 17,24,00,000 8 BakshiramUderam Holding Pvt Ltd 2013-14 and 2014-15 1,13,00,000 As evident from the above table, in the case of first 5 share applicants, the source of share application money has already been taxed by the respective AOs. Thus, when the source itself is taxed, there cannot be a double addition in the hands of the assessee. reliance is placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs CIT For share applicants No.6 and 7, the source of the share application money received by the assessee was Share Capital raised by these parties in FY 2009-10. During reassessment proceedings of these parties for AY 2009-10, the share capital raised by this party was I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 44 duly examined by its learned AO and the same was accepted by him as genuine. Accordingly, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. Thus, the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year is an explained credit and no addition is warranted w.r.t the share capital raised by the assessee from this party as the source is explained. For share applicant No.8, please note that this party is a group concern of the assessee. The networth of this party as on 31-03-2013 and as on 31-03-2014 was Rs.12.17 cr and Rs.12.22 crores respectively which justifies the creditworthiness of the party to invest in the assessee company. Entire share application money was received through normal banking channels. This party is a regular income tax assessee. The share transactions are recorded in the books of both the parties. Hence, the identity, creditworthiness of this party and genuineness of the transactions is proven. 30. As far as A.Y. 2012-13 is concerned, it has been submitted before us that these additions were made in the regular assessment also, which was passed under section 143(3) on 04.03.2015. The second appeal against this assessment order has travelled upto the Tribunal and heard by ‘B’ Bench. Therefore, in this year, we do not record any finding qua the merits of additions, because we have already quashed the assessment passed under section 153A. In case, these additions sustained against the regular assessment order, then on quashment of search assessment passed under section 153A the regular would revive. Therefore, we do not make any comments on the position of additions made in A.Y. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 45 2012-13. The only finding in this year is that assessment order passed under section 153A is without jurisdiction. 31. As far as other years are concerned, i.e. A.Y. 2013- 14 and 2014-15 in the appeals of all respondents, it is observed that ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised two-fold submissions. In his first fold of contention, he pointed out about the evidence used against the assessee. In the earlier part of this order, we have observed that this aspect will be referred in the later part of the order. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his submissions from paragraph no. 8 onwards has tabulated the details showing the pleas raised before the ld. Assessing Officer. We deem it appropriate to take note of these submissions:- 8. In reply, the assessee submitted that as follows: Narsingh Ispat Limited AY-2012-13 SHARE APPLICANT AMOUNT IN (Rs.) SUBMISSION BEFORE AO Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd. 10,52,00,000 Same addition already made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04-03- 2015 in the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13. Adding the same again in 153A proceedings will tantamount to double addition of the same amount, refer page 108-113 of the paper book Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd 8,62,50,000 Same addition already made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04-03- 2015 in the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13. Adding the same again in 153A proceedings will I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 46 tantamount to double addition of the same amount, refer page 108-113 of the paper book 19,14,50,000 Narsingh Ispat Limited AY-2013-14 SHARE APPLICANT AMOUNT IN (Rs.) SUBMISSION BEFORE AO Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd. 98,55,000 Share Capital of Rs. 14,80,00,000/- was raised by Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd during FY 2008-09. The said sum of Rs. 14.80 cr. had already been added in the assessment order of Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd for AY 2009-10 dated 12-03- 2015 passed u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of the Act. This share application money received by the party was re-invested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Since the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year has already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Refer page 159-210 of the paper book. Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd 50,00,000 Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd gave a loan of Rs.5.85 cr. to Shri Anil Goyal in FY 2012-13 (AY 2013- 14). The said loan of Rs. 5.8 5 cr. has been added in the assessment order of Anil Goyal in AY 2013-14 dated 29-12-2017, refer page 315- 326. Out of the said loan of Rs.5.85 cr., a sum of Rs. 1.43 cr. was refunded back to Seaview Agencies in the same year, being FY 2012-13. This repayment of loan was reinvested in the assessee company to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. Since the source of Rs.50,00,000/- had already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd 4,58,00,000 Share Capital of Rs. 15,51,00,000/-was raised by Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd during FY 2008-09. The said sum of Rs. 15.51 crores had already been added in the assessment order of Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd for AY 2009-10 dated 17- 03-2015 passed u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of the Act. This share application money received by the party was reinvested in share capital of the assessee I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 47 company in the relevant year. Since the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year has already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Refer page 80-92 of the paper book. Innova Tie-up Private Limited 27,70,000 Share capital of Rs. 13,31,00,000/- was raised by Innova Tie-up Pvt Ltd during FY 2008-09. The said sum of Rs. 13.31 cr. had already been added in the assessment order of Innova Tie-up Pvt Ltd for AY 2009-10 dated 11- 03-2015 u/s 68 of the Act. This share application money received by the party was re-invested in shares of the assessee company in the relevant year. Since the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year has already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Refer page 307-314 of the paper book. Bakshiram Uderam Holding Pvt Ltd 95,00,000 This party is a group concern of the assessee. The networth of this party as on 31-03-2013 was Rs. 12.17 crores which justifies the creditworthiness of the party to invest in the assessee company. Entire share application money was received through normal banking channels. This party is a regular income tax assessee. The share transactions are recorded in the books of both the parties. Hence, the identity, creditworthiness of this party and genuineness of the transactions is proven. Refer page 93-117 of the paper book. Everlite suppliers Pvt Ltd 80,71,000 Share Capital of Rs. 11,39,00,000/- was raised by this party in FY 2008-09. During reassessment proceedings of this party for AY 2009-10, the share capital raised by this party was duly examined by its learned AO and the same was accepted by him as genuine. Accordingly, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 17-02-2011, refer page 281-282 of the paper book. This share capital received by the party was reinvested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Thus, the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year is an explained credit and no addition is warranted w.r.t the share capital I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 48 raised by the assessee from this party as the source is explained. VedantVincom Pvt Ltd 1,90,00,000 VedantVincom Pvt Ltd gave a loan of Rs.6.28 cr. to Shri Anil Goyal in FY 2012-13 (AY 2013-14). The said loan of Rs.6.28 cr. has been added in the assessment order of Anil Goyal in AY 2013- 14 dated 29-12-2017, refer page 315- 326. A part of the said loan was refunded back to the party in the same year, being FY 2012-13. This repayment of loan was reinvested in the assessee company to the tune of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-. Since the source of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- had already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. 9,99,96,000 Narsingh Ispat Limited AY-2014-15 SHARE APPLICANT AMOUNT IN (Rs.) SUBMISSION BEFORE AO Reliable Commodeal Pvt Ltd 5,36,80,000 Share Capital of Rs. 17,24,00,000/- was raised by this party in FY 2008-09. During reassessment proceedings of this party for AY 2009-10, the share capital raised by this party was duly examined by its learned AO and the same was accepted by him as genuine. Accordingly, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 06-08-2012, refer page 116-117 of the paper book. This share capital received by the party was re-invested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Thus, the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year is an explained credit and no addition is warranted w.r.t the share capital raised by the assessee from this party as the source is explained. Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd 30,00,000 Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd gave a loan of Rs.5.85 cr. to Shri Anil Goyal in FY 2012-13 (AY 2013- 14). The said loan of Rs.5.85 cr. has been added in the assessment order of Anil Goyal in AY I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 49 2013-14 dated 29-12-2017, refer page 151-164. Out of the said loan of Rs.5.85 cr., a sum of Rs. 1.43 cr. was refunded back to Seaview Agencies in the same year, being FY 2012-13. This repayment of loan was reinvested in the assessee company to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. Since the source of Rs.30,00,000/- had already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. VedantVincom Pvt Ltd 4,04,50,000 VedantVincom Pvt Ltd gave a loan of Rs.6.28 cr. to Shri Anil Goyal in FY 2012-13 (AY 2013-14). The said loan of Rs.6.28 cr. has been added in the assessment order of Anil Goyal in AY 2013- 14 dated 29-12-2017, refer page 151- 164. A part of the said loan was refunded back to the party in the same year, being FY 2012-13. This repayment of loan was reinvested in the assessee company to the tune of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-. Since the source of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- had already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. 9,71,30,000 Narsingh IspatUdvog Private Limited AY-2013-14 SHARE APPLICANT AMOUNT IN (Rs.) SUBMISSION BEFORE AO Honesty Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 29,50,000 Share Capital of Rs. 14,80,00,000/- was raised by Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd during FY 2008-09. The said sum of Rs. 14.80 cr. had already been added in the assessment order of Honesty Dealers Pvt Ltd for AY 2009-10 dated 12-03-2015 passed u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of the Act. This share application money received by the party was re- invested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Since the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year has already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Refer page 77-119 of the paper book. Seaview 22,65,000 Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd gave a loan of Rs.5.85 cr. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 50 Agencies Pvt. Ltd. to Shri Anil Goyal in FY 2012-13 (AY 2013-14). The said loan of Rs.5.85 cr. has been added in the assessment order of Anil Goyal in AY 2013-14 dated 29-12-2017, refer page 315-326 of paper of Narsingh Ispat Ltd. AY2013-14. Out of the said loan of Rs.5.85 cr., a sum of Rs. 1.43 cr was refunded back to Seaview Agencies in the same year, being FY 2012-13. This repayment of loan was reinvested in the assessee company to the tune of Rs.22,65,000/-. Since the source of Rs.22,65,000/- had already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Delta Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000 Share Capital of Rs. 15,51,00,000/- was raised by Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd during FY 2008-09. The said sum of Rs. 15.51 crores had already been added in the assessment order of Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd for AY 2009-10 dated 17-03-2015 passed u/s 144/263/143(3)/147 of the Act. This share application money received by the party was re- invested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Since the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year has already been taxed, adding the same again will tantamount to double addition. Refer page 50-62 of the paper book. Bakshiram Uderam Holding Pvt. Ltd. 9,00,000 This party is a group concern of the assessee. The networth of this party as on 31-03-2014 was Rs. 12.20 crores which justifies the creditworthiness of the party to invest in the assessee company. Entire share application money was received through normal banking channels. This party is a regular income tax assessee. The share transactions are recorded in the books of both the parties. Hence, the identity, creditworthiness of this party and genuineness of the transactions is proven. Refer page 63-76 of the paper book. Everlite suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 47,00,000 Share Capital of Rs. 11,39,00,000/- was raised by this party in FY 2008-09. During reassessment proceedings of this party for AY 2009-10, the share capital raised by this party was duly examined by its learned AO and the same was accepted by him as genuine. Accordingly, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 17- 02-2011, refer page 151-152 of the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 51 paper book. This share capital received by the party was re-invested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Thus, the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year is an explained credit and no addition is warranted w.r.t the share capital raised by the assessee from this party as the source is explained. 1,58,00,000 Narsingh Ispat Udyog Private Limited AY-2014-15 SHARE APPLICANT AMOUNT IN (Rs.) SUBMISSION BEFORE AO Reliable Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 1,80,00,000 Share Capital of Rs. 17,24,00,000/- was raised by this party in FY 2008-09. During reassessment proceedings of this party for AY 2009-10, the share capital raised by this party was duly examined by its learned AO and the same was accepted by him as genuine. Accordingly, no addition was made in the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 06-08-2012, refer page 47-48 of the paper book. This share capital received by the party was reinvested in share capital of the assessee company in the relevant year. Thus, the source of share capital raised by the assessee during the year is an explained credit and no addition is warranted w.r.t the share capital raised by the assessee from this party as the source is explained. Bakshiram Uderam Holding Pvt. Ltd. 9,00,000 This party is a group concern of the assessee. The networth of this party as on 31-03-2013 was Rs. 12.17 crores which justifies the creditworthiness of the party to invest in the assessee company. Entire share application money was received through normal banking channels. This party is a regular income tax assessee. The share transactions are recorded in the books of both the parties. Hence, the identity, creditworthiness of this party and genuineness of the transactions is proven. Refer page 49-58 of the paper book. 1,89,00,000 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 52 For appeal in the case of BakshiramUderam Holding Pvt. Ltd, AY 2018-19, IT(SS)A No.34/Kol/2023 it was submitted that no new fresh capital was raised during the relevant year to warrant any addition u/s 68 of the Act. The following six (6) companies were merged with M/s BakshiramUderam Holdings Private Limited pursuant to the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the order dated 09.05.2019 of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench w.e.f. 01-04-2017. i. M/s Everlite Suppliers Private Limited; ii. M/s Keynote Suppliers Private Limited; iii. M/s VedantVincom Private Limited; iv. M/s Annex Distributors Private Limited; v. M/s LakshyaTradecom Private Limited; vi. M/s Bumpur Infrastructure Private Limited. The amalgamation order was received by the assessee in the month of May 2019. By that time the accounts of FY 2017-18 were already audited, therefore, the effect of the merger was incorporated in FY 2018-19, refer page 34-39 of the paper book. It was submitted that no fresh capital was raised by the assessee from these companies in the relevant year, refer audited accounts for FY 2017-18 placed at page 16-33 of the paper book. The increase in share capital recorded in the audited accounts of FY 2018-19 was on account of the effect of amalgamation. The share capital was raised by these transferor companies much before the relevant AY 2018-19. Certificate from a practicing CA confirming that no fresh share capital was raised by the assessee from these companies is enclosed at page 15 of the paper book. Similarly, in the case of Narsingh Ispat Ltd. AY 2018-19, IT(SS)A No.40/Kol/2023, it was submitted that no new fresh capital was raised during the relevant year to warrant any addition u/s 68 of the Act. The following two companies were merged with the assessee company pursuant to the Scheme of amalgamation I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 53 sanctioned by the order dated 07-02-2019 of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench w.e.f. 01-04-2017. 1. Reliable Commodeal Pvt Ltd 2. Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd The amalgamation order was received by the assessee in the month of February 2019. By that time the accounts of FY 2017-18 were already audited, therefore, the effect of the merger was incorporated in FY 2018-19, refer page 44-47 of the paper book. It was submitted that no fresh capital was raised by the assessee from these companies in the relevant year. The increase in share capital recorded in the audited accounts of FY 2018-19 was on account of the effect of amalgamation. The share capital was raised by these transferor companies much before the relevant AY 2018-19. Certificate from a practicing CA confirming that no fresh share capital was raised by the assessee from these companies is enclosed at page 42 of the paper book. 9. However, the learned AO was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and held that, The reply of the assessee company has been perused and found not at all tenable on the following grounds: (a) In his statement, Shri Mukesh Banka has admitted that through some dummy directors he managed some paper companies. In view of the above it is evident aforesaid allotee companies as mentioned in the table of para 2, are among those shell/paper companies managed and controlled by him. M/s M/sSeaview Agencies Pvt Ltd and M/s Everlite Suppliers Pvt Ltd was subsequently merged with the assessee-company. Statement of Shri Pankaj Agarwal recorded on oath on 03.02.2011 wherein he himself admitted of providing accommodation entries through shell companies M/s BakshiramUderam Holding Pvt Ltd. (b) It is relevant to mention here that whenever a sum is credited in the books of the assessee, the following three criteria should be I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 54 passed on litmus test (i) Identity (ii) Creditworthiness (iii)Genuineness of the transaction. (c) It is observedfrom the financial analysis of M/s Delta Dealers Pvt Ltd, M/s Innova Tie-Up Pvt Ltd, M/s Honesty Dealers Private Limited, M/s BakshiramUderam Holding Pvt Ltd, M/s Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd and M/s Everlite Suppliers Pvt Ltd that these allottee companies have no fixed assets and are not paying or paid any rent for years. This fact is further strengthened by the fact that all of the above companies’ PBT meagre. Besides, these companies have no business establishment and they only exist on papers. (e) The above factual analysis clearly indicates that the allottee companies are merely paper/shell companies practically having no financial creditworthiness and their transactions are prearranged, disguised and cannot pass the test of genuineness. This is further fortified from the fact that all these companies have meagre or nil profit accumulation over the years and they do not have any physical existence too. (f) Moreover, any concern makes a decision on investment on the basis of various parameters under consideration such as financial health of the company, P/E ratio, debt to equity ratio, dividend payment and most important is efficiency/stability of the management of the company. However, from the list of concerns in which the investment was made and their financial analysis, it can be easily understood that the concerns are not having good score on any parameters so that to attract huge amount of investment. It is hard to digest as to what prompted the assessee company to invest such huge amount without verifying financial credentials, existence, business operations and management of the companies in whose share investment is made. Therefore, it can be concluded that the investment was bogus in nature. (h) The assessee was duly given the opportunity for cross examination on 23.2.2022 and 28.12.2022. But neither the assessee nor Mukesh Banka nor Pankaj Agarwal was appeared on those days. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 55 In the light above discussion vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances in the instant case as well as the assessee’s inability to discharge its own burden of proof to substantiate identity & creditworthiness of party and genuineness of transaction of share application received. 32. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that ld. Assessing Officer has made reference to the statements of Shri Mukesh Banka recorded by the Investigating Agency of the Department as well as the statement of Shri Pankaj Aggrawal and thereafter recorded a finding that the assessee failed to fulfil the conditions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 33. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in his second fold of contention submitted that source of share application money already taxed by the respective Assessing Officers in the hands of share applicants and, therefore, it cannot be taxed again. He made reference to the Explanation appended to section 5 of the Income Tax Act. He emphasized that the same amount cannot be taxed in two hands. 34. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. before we embark upon an inquiry on the facts of the present appeal, in order to find out whether the share I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 56 capital and share premium money received by the assessee during the year is required to be treated as their unexplained credit and deserves to be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We deem it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles/tests propounded in various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also pertinent to observe that both the sides have made reference to a large number of decisions. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate them because that would make this order repetitive and bulky. We take cognizance of some of them. It is pertinent to observe that in so far as companies incorporated under Indian Companies Act are concerned, whether private limited or public limited companies, they raise their share capital, through shares though manner of raising share capital in private limited company on one hand and public limited company on other hand, would be different. The share capital and share premium are basically irreversible receipts or credits in the hands of the companies. Share capital is considered to be cost of shares on equivalent amount issued and premium is considered as extra amount charged by the company for issue of that capital. In the case of private limited company, normally shares are subscribed by family members or persons known/close to the promoters. Public limited company, on the other hand, generally raised by public issue inviting general public at large for I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 57 subscription of these shares. Yet, it is also possible that in the case of public limited company, the share capital is issued in close-circuit. When companies incorporated under the Companies Act raise their capital through shares, various persons would apply for shares and then give share application money. This amount received from such share holder would naturally be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. Once the alleged share capital is credited to the accounts of the assessee, then role of section 68 would come. It is pertinent to take note of this section. It reads as under: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the officer, satisfactory the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." 35. A perusal of the section would indicate that basically this section contemplates three conditions required to be fulfilled by an assessee. In other words, the assessee is required to give explanation which will exhibit nature of transaction and also explain the source of such credit. The explanation should be to the satisfaction of the AO. In order to give such type of explanation which could satisfy the AO, the assessee should fulfill three ingredients viz. (a) identity of the share applicants, (b) genuineness of the transaction, and (c) credit-worthiness of share applicants. As far as construction of section 68 and to I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 58 understand its meaning is concerned, there is no much difficulty. Difficulty arises when we apply the conditions formulated in this section on the given facts and circumstances. In other words, it has been propounded in various decisions that section 68 contemplates that there should be a credit of amounts in the books of an assessee maintained by the assessee, (b) such amount has to be a sum received during the previous year, (c) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or (d) the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 has considered a large number of decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). According to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court basically there are two sets of judgments. In one set of case, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the share-holder and bank account from which payment was made. The fact that payment was received through bank channels, filed necessary ITA No.3619/Ahd/2015 affidavit of the shareholders or confirmations of the directors of the shareholder company. But thereafter no further inquiry was made by the AO. The second set of cases are those where there was evidence and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 59 made substantial and huge investments in the form of share application money. The assessing officer has referred to the bank statement, financial position of the recipient and beneficiary assessee and surrounding circumstances. 36. Let us take into consideration observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P.Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon'ble Delhi High Court made following observations: "..... This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of permanent account numbers, to highlight the identity of the share applicants, as well as produced the affidavits of the directors. Furthermore, the bank details of the share applicants too had been provided. In the circumstances, it was held that the assessee had established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness; The Assessing Officer chose to proceed no further but merely added the amounts because of the absence of the directors to physically present themselves before him. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has relied upon a decision of this court in CIT v. fair Finvest Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 146 (Delhi), where in somewhat similar circumstances, it was stated as follows (page 152) : "This court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income-tax ITA No.3619/Ahd/2015 (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the Registrar of Companies in relation to the share I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 60 application, affidavits of the directors, Form 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr. Mahesh Garg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced mate- rial. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustworthy or lacked credibility the Assessing Officer merely concluded on the basis of enquiry report, which collected certain facts and the statements of Mr. Mahesh Garg that the income sought to be added fell within the description of section 68. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra)". 37. We also deem it appropriate to take note of some of observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court from the decision of Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Court has noticed proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., 329 ITR 271 (Delhi) regarding non-production of share applicants before the AO. The following observations are worth to note: ...In this connection the observation of the jurisdictional High Court in case of Dwarkadhish Investment (Supra) are quite relevant where the court has observed that it is the revenue which has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person. Further in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 61 329 ITR 271 it has been held that there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some Director or other representative of the Director or other representative of the applicant ITA No.3619/Ahd/2015 companies before the A.O. Therefore failure on part of the assessee to produce the Directors of the share applicant companies could not by itself have justified the additions made by the AO particularly when the seven share applicant companies through their present Directors have now again filed fresh affidavits confirming the application and allotment of shares with respect to the total amount of Rs.45 Lacs. It is observed that no attempt was made by the AO to summon the Directors of the share applicant companies. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not prove the "source of source". Accordingly it was incumbent upon the department to have enforced attendance of Shri Mahesh Garg or the erstwhile Directors of the share applicant companies and confronted them with the evidences & affidavits relied upon by the appellant and thereupon given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these applicants." 38. In the light of above, if we peruse the assessment order, then it would reveal that inspite of search the Department was unable to lay its hands on any incriminating material. The ld. Assessing Officer though tried to pass the assessment order as a regular assessment order but what he has referred is the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka only. Thereafter his observations are peripheral in nature demonstrating the credential of the share applicant companies. The ld. Assessing Officer has used the statement of one Shri Pankaj Agrawal recorded on 03.02.2011. We are of the view that in a searched assessment under section 153A, the ld. Assessing Officer could not bring conclusive facts I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 62 on the record. The two statements recorded much prior to the search by Investigating Agencies of the Income Tax Department in some other proceedings cannot be used against the assessee without giving them opportunity to cross examination. We can make reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries –vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the statements, which are being used as a foundation for making any addition could not be used unless the assessee is being provided opportunity to cross examine. In these cases, the ld. Assessing Officer even not recorded the statements himself, these were recorded by some Investigating Agencies in some other proceedings in the past. This can be, at the most, information for initiating the assessment machinery in motion, but they cannot be considered conclusive in a search assessment proceeding under section 153A. Therefore, the additions in the assessments under section 153A are not sustainable. In view of the above finding, the appeals bearing IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39/KOL/2023 are dismissed. 39. Now we take IT(SS)A Nos. 34 & 40/KOL/2023, though these appeals are also covered. As far as the first I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 63 fold of dispute is concerned, namely action under section 153A cannot be taken against the assessees in A.Y. 2018-19 also, because no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is common in this year also for both these appeals. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has decided the appeals on the first compartment of section 153A and this action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deserves to be upheld with the help of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited. We have discussed this aspect while dealing with the proposition of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39 of 2023. Our order is applicable on these appeals also. 40. Apart from the preliminary issue, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions on merit also. His submissions read as under:- 4.3 BakshiramUderam Holdings (P) Ltd and Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd (AY 2018-19) No fresh capital was raised during the relevant year to warrant any addition u/s 68 of the Act. The following six (6) companies were merged with M/s BakshiramUderam Holdings Private Limited pursuant to the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the order dated 09.05.2019 of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench w.e.f. 01-04-2017. i. M/s Everlite Suppliers Private Limited; I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 64 ii. M/s Keynote Suppliers Private Limited; iii. M/s VedantVincom Private Limited; iv. M/s Annex Distributors Private Limited; v. M/s LakshyaTradecom Private Limited; vi. M/s Bumpur Infrastructure Private Limited. The following two companies were merged with Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd by the order dated 07-02-2019 of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench w.e.f. 01-04- 2017 i. Reliable Commodeal Pvt Ltd ii. Seaview Agencies Pvt Ltd The amalgamation order was received by the assessee after the audit of accounts for FY 2017-18. Therefore, the effect of the merger was incorporated in FY 2018-19 in both these cases. Certificate from a practicing CA confirming that no fresh share capital was raised by the assessee from these companies is enclosed at page 42 of the paper book. Furthermore shares were issued to the shareholders of the transferor companies in FY 2018-19. NCLT Order has not been challenged by the Department. Hence, the said orders attained finality and are binding on the Assessing Officers. Order passed by NCLT are like statute even for the learned AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Dalmia Power Ltd. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC) wherein it has been held that, “Pursuant thereto, the Schemes were sanctioned by the NCLT, Chennai vide Orders, dated 16-10-2017, 20-10-2017, 26-10- 2017, 28-12-2017, 10-1-2018, 20-4-2018 and 1-5-2018; and vide Orders, dated 18-5-2017 and 30-8-2017 by the NCLT, Guwahati. Accordingly, the Schemes attained statutory force not only inter se the Transferor and Transferee Companies, but also in rem, since there was no objection raised either by the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 65 statutory authorities, the Department, or other regulators or authorities, likely to be affected by the Schemes. [Para 4.6]” Thus, since no share application money was received by the assessee group in AY 2018-19, provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked in this year. Hence, in view of the above facts of the case, the assessee humbly request Your Honours to dismiss the present appeals filed by the Revenue. Hope the above submission is in order and to your satisfaction. 41. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that these pleas were not taken either before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee should not be permitted to raise these pleas. 42. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that he is placing on record copy of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata passed in C.P.(ACAA)No.1294/KB/2018 and CACAIT/414/KB/2018 Kol. and copy of this order is placed on pages no. 31 to 41 of the paper book. On the strength of this order, he submitted that it is a judicial order determining the status of these companies, which can affect the taxability therefore the assessee should be permitted to raise all these pleas. I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 66 43. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The stand of the assessee is that six companies mentioned in the written submissions extracted supra merged with Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Limited w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017. Whatever share application money they have raised could not be tinkered with by the ld. Assessing Officer. Once in an amalgamation petition, all these facts have been recognized and their status has been merged in Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Limited. In other words, in the hands of the successor, this aspect cannot be enquired into after the amalgamation. For this purpose, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Power Limited (112 taxmann.com 252). Similar is the position with regard to Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited. Two companies have merged and the National Company Law Tribunal has amalgamated all these companies w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The assessee has demonstrated that in this year neither Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Limited has raised any share capital money nor Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited. Whatever action has done in the past by their share applicants cannot be investigated in the hands of the assessee after amalgamation. Therefore, we are of the I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 67 view that in view of the National Company Law Tribunal’s decision on the amalgamation petition, no inquiry could be made in the hands of both these assessees qua the antecedents of merged companies. On the second-fold also, additions are not sustainable. Both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 44. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 9 th , 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President(KZ) Kolkata, the 9 th day of June, 2023 Copies to : (1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4 th Floor, Room No. 406, E.M. Bypass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 (2) Bakshiram Uderam Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 26, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106 (3) Narsingh Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., 26, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106 I.T.(SS)A No. 34/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) I.T.(SS)A No. 35/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 36/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 37/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) I.T.(SS)A No. 38/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) I.T.(SS)A No. 39/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2014-2015) I.T.(SS)A No. 40/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2018-2019) 68 (4) Narsingh Ispat Limited, 15 th Floor, Room No. 1512, Diamond Heritage, 16, Strand Road, Fairley Place, Kolkata- 700001 (5) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (6) Commissioner of Income Tax , (7) The Departmental Representative (8) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.
Other Referred Cases
PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Limited, CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, Vipin Khanna vs. CIT, Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs CIT, Dalmia Power Ltd vs CIT, Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia vs CIT, PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026