Harshil Ramakant Dalal, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 81/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8453 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKAMLESHMAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIBIRENSHAH

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)ANos.81&82/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Years:(2014-2015&2015-2016) & आयकरअपीलसं ./IT(SS)ANo.83/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:(2017-2018) HarshilRamakantDalal, 73,GalaCillaAqua,Gokuldham, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-382210. PAN:APAPD3255R Vs. A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-2(2), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriBirenShah,AR Revenueby:ShriKamleshMakwana,CITDR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:31/01/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:29/02/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERBENCH: Thecaptionedthreeappealshavebeenfiledattheinstanceoftheassessee againsttheseparateordersofLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad,arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.153Ar.w.s. IT(SS)Anos.81,82&83/AHD/2023 A.Ys.2014-15,2015-16&2017-18 2 143(3)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct") relevanttotheAssessmentYears2014-2015,2015-16&2017-18. First,wetakeupIT(SS)ANo.81/Ahd/2023,anappealbythe assesseeforAY2014-15 2.Theasseseeingroundnumbers1and2haschallengedthevalidityofthe assessmentframedu/s153Ar.w.s.143(3)oftheAct. 3.Thenecessaryfactsarethattheasseseeinthepresentcaseisanindividual andGlobalChiefFinancialOfficerofDishmanGroup.Therewasasearchand seizureandsurveyoperationu/s132/133AoftheActdated19/12/2019and subsequentdaysatDishmanGroup.Theresidentialpremisesoftheassesseewas alsosubjecttosearchoperationu/s132(2)oftheAct.TheAOduringthe assessmentproceedingsfoundthattheassesseehasmadeabogusdonationto ManavidhkarNationalPartyamountingtoRs.2,27,000/-andclaimedthe deductionu/s80GGAoftheActforthesame.However,theAOfoundthat becauseofsearch,theassesseeadmittedhavingmadebogusdonationofRs. 7,00,000/-toManavidhkarNationalPartyintheFinancialYear2018-19 correspondingtoA.Y.2019-20inthestatementrecordedu/s132(4)oftheAct. Thus,theAOdisallowedthedeductionofthedonationpertainingtotheyear underconsiderationandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 4.OnappealtheLd.CIT(A),wasalsopleasedtoconfirmthedisallowanceof thedeductionmadebytheAO. 5.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. IT(SS)Anos.81,82&83/AHD/2023 A.Ys.2014-15,2015-16&2017-18 3 6.TheLd.ARbeforeussubmittedthattherewasnodocumentof incriminatingnaturefoundpertainingtotheyearindisputeandthereforeno additioniswarrantedbeingunabatedassessmentyear.AspertheLd.AR,the incriminatingdocumentswerefoundpertainingtothefinancialyear2018-19 correspondingtotheassessmentyear2019-20butthesamecannotbe extrapolatedorusedintheyearunderconsideration.TheLd.ARreliedonthe judgmentofHon’bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofAbhisarBuildwell(P.) Ltd.reportedin149taxmann.com399(SC). 6.1TheLd.ARfurthersubmittedthateventhestatementfurnishedbythe assesseeu/s132(4)oftheAct,cannotbeusedagainsthimintheyearunder disputeunlesscorroboratedbytheincriminatingdocuments.TheLd.ARin supportofhiscontentionhasreliedonthejudgmentofHon’bleDelhiHighCourt inthecaseofCITvs.BestInfrastructure(India)(P)Ltd.reportedin397ITR82 7.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRsubmittedthattheassesseewasinvolvedin thetaxevasionandthereforethebogusdonationgivenbytheassesseeshouldbe disallowed.TheLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow. 8.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,theyearbeforeusisunabated assessmentyearandthereforethesamecannotbedisturbedduringthe assessmentproceedingsu/s153AoftheActuntilanydocumentofincriminating natureisfoundpertainingtotheyearunderconsideration.Inthisregard,we noticethattheAOhimselfinhisorderhasreproducedtherelevantportionofthe statementoftheassesseerecordedu/s132(4)oftheAct,whereinitwasadmitted bytheassesseethatthebogusdonationwasmadeintheyearunder consideration.Assuch,therewasnodocumentofincriminatingnaturefound becauseofsearchpertainingtotheyearindisputeexceptinthefinancialyear IT(SS)Anos.81,82&83/AHD/2023 A.Ys.2014-15,2015-16&2017-18 4 2018-19correspondingtoAY2019-2020.TheHon’bleSCinthecaseofAbhisar Buildwell(P.)Ltd.(Supra)hasobservedasunder: 8.Forthereasonsstatedhereinbelow,weareincompleteagreementwiththeviewtaken bytheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofKabulChawla(supra)andtheGujaratHighCourtin thecaseofSaumyaConstruction(supra),takingtheviewthatnoadditioncanbemadein respectofcompletedassessmentinabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial. 8.2Thus,intheabsenceofanyincriminatingdocumentfortheyearunder disputebeingunabatedassessmentyear,weholdthatnoadditioncanbemadein theyearindispute. 8.3Atthisstage,itisalsonecessarytodealwhetherthestatementrecorded u/s132(4)oftheAct,duringthesearchoperationamountstoincriminating documentswhichcanbeusedforthepurposeofassessmentwithrespectto unabatedassessmentyear.This,questionhasbeenansweredbytheHon’ble DelhiHighCourtinthecaseofBestInfrastructure(India)(P)Ltd.(supra)wherein itwasheldasunder: Fifthly,statementsrecordedunderSection132(4)oftheActoftheActdonotby themselvesconstituteincriminatingmaterialashasbeenexplainedbythisCourtinHarjeev Aggarwal(supra). 8.4Inviewoftheabove,weholdthatthatnoadditiononaccountofbogus donationcanbemadetothetotalincomeoftheassesseeintheabsenceofany documentofincriminatingnature.Accordingly,weset-asidethefindingoftheLd. CIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hence,theground ofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 8.5Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed. ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.82&83/Ahd/2023,anappealbytheassessee forAYs.2015-16&2017-18. IT(SS)Anos.81,82&83/AHD/2023 A.Ys.2014-15,2015-16&2017-18 5 9.Theasseseeinboththeappealshavechallengedthevalidityofthe assessmentframedu/s153Ar.w.s.143(3)oftheAct. 10.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheassesseeinitsground ofappealsfortheAYs2015-16&2017-18areidenticaltotheissueraisedbythe assesseeinIT(SS)ANo.81/Ahd/2023fortheassessmentyear2014-15.Therefore, thefindingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo.81/Ahd/2023shallalsobeapplicableforthe yearsunderconsiderationi.e.boththeappealsforAYs2015-16&2017-18.The appealoftheassesseefortheassessment2014-15hasbeendecidedbyusvide paragraphNo.8ofthisorderinfavouroftheassessee.ThelearnedARandthe DRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsfortheassessmentyear2014- 15shallalsobeapplicablefortheyearsunderconsiderationi.e.AYs2015-16& 2017-18.Hence,thegroundsofappealfiledbytheassesseeareherebyallowed. 11.Intheresult,bothappealsfiledbytheassesseeareallowed. 12.Inthecombinedresult,allthethreeappealsfiledbytheassesseeare allowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton29/02/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated29/02/2024 Manish