RAMEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. .DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4302/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which faced reassessments under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation related to Shri Uday Shetty and others. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) used documents seized during the operation to reassess the income of Ramee Hotels for several assessment years, claiming that these documents contained incriminating evidence. The assessee contested these reassessments, arguing that the assessments were based on concluded assessments which should not be reopened under Section 153C, and that the materials used did not constitute incriminating evidence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) agreed with the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions made to the income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40290 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, CC-4(2) v. Hilton, Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd v. DCIT, CC-4(2)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANYOGITA NAGPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANDAR VAIDYA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Business expenditure; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 153C; 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4293/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) ITA No. 4295/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 4297/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No. 4298/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) ITA No. 4300/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No. 4302/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Plot. No. 3, Kohinoor Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai-400014 v/s. बनाम ACIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai Room No. 1903, 19th Floor, AIR India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ̾थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCR3369M Appellant/अपीलाथŎ .. Respondent/Ůितवादी Assessee by : Shri. Mandar Vaidya Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal Date of Hearing 05.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT [A.M.] :- The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 54 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for respective assessment years in relation to search assessments involved in these six appeal disposed off together by way of this common order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] out at the premises of “Shri Uday Shetty and others search and seizure action, certain documents belonging were seized. The AO of the search others and the AO of assesse Ltd., being the same officer, h provisions of section 153C of the Act to the effect documents/information received to assessee and having bearing case of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 1 six assessment years proceeding carried out i.e. AY 2018-19 to 2013 section 153A of the Act, which provide assessment years but within 10 assessment years condition that the AO represented in the form of asset ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 n relation to search assessments. As common issue and in these six appeals, therefore, same were heard together by way of this common order for convenience and avoid Briefly stated facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] Shri Uday Shetty and others” on 23.01.2019. In search and seizure action, certain documents belonging/related to assessee . The AO of the searched person i.e. Shri Uday Shetty group assessed person i.e. the assessee Shri Ram being the same officer, he recorded satisfaction on 06.12.2021 section 153C of the Act to the effect documents/information received in search of ‘Udai shetty group bearing on the determination of the total income in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 153C proceeding to the assessment year in which search 19 to 2013-14. The AO, further, invoked 4 section 153A of the Act, which provided reopening the assessment beyond six assessment years but within 10 assessment years subject to fulfillment AO had in his possession incriminating evidence represented in the form of asset which revealed income P a g e | 2 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. issue and dispute is were heard together and together by way of this common order for convenience and avoid search and seizure action u/s tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] was carried on 23.01.2019. In said related to assessee Uday Shetty group & person i.e. the assessee Shri Ramee Hotels Pvt. satisfaction on 06.12.2021 under the section 153C of the Act to the effect that certain tty group’ were related determination of the total income in the 53C r.w.s 153A for which search was 14. The AO, further, invoked 4th proviso to reopening the assessment beyond six fulfillment of the in his possession incriminating evidence which revealed income of value Rs. 50,00,000/- or more and had escaped assessment. In view of this proviso, the AO also reopened AY 2012 3. The AO completed the reassessment for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act not make any addition on the basis of recorded while initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference, the addition made for disallowance of interest expenditure o made ( bold letters) in AY 2018 6. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee i Particulars I. Income from Business and Profession Add: Disallowances as per order u/s. 143(3) dated 23.04.2021 Add: Interest expenditure on lease hold land (as discussed in Para 4 above II Income from Other Sources Gross Total Income Set off Brought Forward Loss (Ay 2012-13) (1,70,53,245/ minus 1,29,26,382/ Set off Brought Forward Loss (AY 2013-14) (only to the extent of available business income after set off loss from AY 2012-13) Total Income 4. The discussion Relevant assessment order is also reproduced as under “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee it is seen that under the Finance Cost (Note 30), the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 35,37,725/ ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 or more and had escaped assessment. In view of this proviso, the AO also reopened AY 2012-13 and issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s 1 completed the reassessments u/s 153C for the assessment for which he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, but in those assessment not make any addition on the basis of documents for which satisfaction was initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference, the addition made for disallowance of interest expenditure on in AY 2018-19 is reproduced as under: 6. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) Income from Business and 4,14,13,122/ Disallowances as per order u/s. 143(3) dated 23.04.2021 95,84,996/- Interest expenditure on lease hold land (as discussed in Para 4 above 35,37,725/- 5,45,35,843/ Income from Other Sources 19,46, 276/ Gross Total Income 5,64,82,119/ Set off Brought Forward Loss 13) (1,70,53,245/- minus 1,29,26,382/-) 41,26,863/- Set off Brought Forward Loss 14) (only to the extent of available business income after set off loss from 5,04,08,980/- 5,45,35,843/ 19,46,276/ Relevant to the addition for lease hold expenses order is also reproduced as under for ready reference “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee it is seen that under the Finance Cost (Note 30), the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 35,37,725/- being the deferred P a g e | 3 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. or more and had escaped assessment. In view of this proviso, the 13 and issued notice u/s 153C r.w.s 157A of the Act. assessment years those assessments, he did which satisfaction was initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference, n lease hold land s computed as under: Amount (in Rs.) 4,14,13,122/- 5,45,35,843/- 19,46, 276/- 5,64,82,119/- 5,45,35,843/- 19,46,276/- to the addition for lease hold expenses in the reference: “4.1 From the accounts of the assessee it is seen that under the Finance Cost (Note being the deferred payment. Further, it is reported by instalments paid to Indore Development Authority (IDA) for purchase of leasehold land. Moreover, in the submission made by the assessee, the principal amount paid in relation to the purchase of flat was rep 'long term advances', however, interest has been claimed under the Revenue. 4.2 From the above facts it is evident that the interest expenditure has been incurred for acquisition of the property, the possession of w assessee. Though it has not received the possession, however, claimed the relatable expenditure under the revenue head i.e., in the profit and loss account. 4.3 In light of the above, in the course of assessment proceeding been issued showcause dated 27.02.2023 as to why the interest expenditure of Rs. 35,37,725/- shown under 'deferred payment and claimed as revenue should not be disallowed and added to the total income. 4.4 In response, the assessee made citing that the assessee is unable to file its response through the e as it is directing them to the e submission of the assessee has been re \"The company had bid for a 90 years leasehold land of Indore Development Authority (IDA) situated at Indore which was awarded to the Company by IDA. The total cost of the leasehold plot was Rs. 8,92,97,600/ of the cost of the plot was paid by the Company. In reservation, out of balance 90% of the total cost of the plot, 15% is payable by the company on or before 27th May, 2011 and thereafter the balance 75% is required to be payable in 40 equ annum. As the said plot is being acquired for the purpose of expansion of business and was to be used solely for business purposes the interest paid on the EMis is in the nature of business expense. Further, the in claimed are for the period under consideration.\" 4.5 The submission of the assessee has been considered, however, there is no merit in it. The fact is in relation to interest incurred on the payment made for acquisition of the property, the possession of which has not been received till date. Since the assessee has not obtained the possession the expenditure in relation to the same has to be capitalized and not to be claimed as revenue. Moreover, the assessee has not given any submission as under which the same is allowable as business expenditure. As per the records and the submission given the assessee has given advances for purchase on which it has incurred interest expenditure and the p date. Therefore the relatable expenditure in relation to the acquisition of the property till the complete possession of the asset has to be capitalized. Accordingly, the claim of interest expenditure of Rs. 35,3 of Rs. 35,37,725/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under Income.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed challenged the additions ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 payment. Further, it is reported by the assessee that the same is the interest on the instalments paid to Indore Development Authority (IDA) for purchase of leasehold land. Moreover, in the submission made by the assessee, the principal amount paid in relation to the purchase of flat was reported as capital advances under the head 'long term advances', however, interest has been claimed under the Revenue. 4.2 From the above facts it is evident that the interest expenditure has been incurred for acquisition of the property, the possession of which has not been received by the assessee. Though it has not received the possession, however, claimed the relatable expenditure under the revenue head i.e., in the profit and loss account. 4.3 In light of the above, in the course of assessment proceeding been issued showcause dated 27.02.2023 as to why the interest expenditure of Rs. shown under 'deferred payment and claimed as revenue should not be disallowed and added to the total income. 4.4 In response, the assessee made its submission through email dated 02.03.2023 citing that the assessee is unable to file its response through the e- as it is directing them to the e-filing portal for filing of Return of Income. The submission of the assessee has been reproduced here for reference: \"The company had bid for a 90 years leasehold land of Indore Development Authority (IDA) situated at Indore which was awarded to the Company by IDA. The total cost of the leasehold plot was Rs. 8,92,97,600/ cost of the plot was paid by the Company. In terms of the letter of reservation, out of balance 90% of the total cost of the plot, 15% is payable by the company on or before 27th May, 2011 and thereafter the balance 75% is required to be payable in 40 equal instalments with an interest of 10.50% annum. As the said plot is being acquired for the purpose of expansion of business and was to be used solely for business purposes the interest paid on the EMis is in the nature of business expense. Further, the in claimed are for the period under consideration.\" 4.5 The submission of the assessee has been considered, however, there is no merit in it. The fact is in relation to interest incurred on the payment made for acquisition possession of which has not been received till date. Since the assessee has not obtained the possession the expenditure in relation to the same has to be capitalized and not to be claimed as revenue. Moreover, the assessee has not given any submission as to how the same was allowable specifying the section under which the same is allowable as business expenditure. As per the records and the submission given the assessee has given advances for purchase on which it has incurred interest expenditure and the possession of the same was not received till date. Therefore the relatable expenditure in relation to the acquisition of the property till the complete possession of the asset has to be capitalized. Accordingly, the claim of interest expenditure of Rs. 35,37,725/- is disallowed. Thus, an addition is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and on merits, however, could not succeed P a g e | 4 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. the assessee that the same is the interest on the instalments paid to Indore Development Authority (IDA) for purchase of leasehold land. Moreover, in the submission made by the assessee, the principal amount paid orted as capital advances under the head 'long term advances', however, interest has been claimed under the Revenue. 4.2 From the above facts it is evident that the interest expenditure has been incurred hich has not been received by the assessee. Though it has not received the possession, however, claimed the relatable expenditure under the revenue head i.e., in the profit and loss account. 4.3 In light of the above, in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has been issued showcause dated 27.02.2023 as to why the interest expenditure of Rs. shown under 'deferred payment and claimed as revenue should not be its submission through email dated 02.03.2023 - proceeding option filing portal for filing of Return of Income. The produced here for reference: \"The company had bid for a 90 years leasehold land of Indore Development Authority (IDA) situated at Indore which was awarded to the Company by IDA. The total cost of the leasehold plot was Rs. 8,92,97,600/- of which 10% terms of the letter of reservation, out of balance 90% of the total cost of the plot, 15% is payable by the company on or before 27th May, 2011 and thereafter the balance 75% is al instalments with an interest of 10.50% annum. As the said plot is being acquired for the purpose of expansion of business and was to be used solely for business purposes the interest paid on the EMis is in the nature of business expense. Further, the interest expenses 4.5 The submission of the assessee has been considered, however, there is no merit in it. The fact is in relation to interest incurred on the payment made for acquisition possession of which has not been received till date. Since the assessee has not obtained the possession the expenditure in relation to the same has to be capitalized and not to be claimed as revenue. Moreover, the assessee has not to how the same was allowable specifying the section under which the same is allowable as business expenditure. As per the records and the submission given the assessee has given advances for purchase on which it has ossession of the same was not received till date. Therefore the relatable expenditure in relation to the acquisition of the property till the complete possession of the asset has to be capitalized. Accordingly, is disallowed. Thus, an addition is made to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 270A r.w.s 274 of the Act is hereby initiated for under-reporting of before the Ld. CIT(A) and , could not succeed, and thus, is in appeal before Tribunal by way of raising ground ready reference, grounds raised in AY 2018 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the assessment for the Asst.year in question was not pending and hence, had not abated u/s.153A r/w.153C. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) had been concluded in April 2021 and concluded assessments were beyond the scope of section 153C r/ws. 153A. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in ignoring the fact that there was по undisclosed income found on the basis of any incriminating material and hence the assessment is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. It is submitted that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any stage of the 5. Without prejudice, on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) erred i interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave appeal.” 6. The assessee has also raised additional ground of the proceedings u/s 153C the additional grounds raised in “1) no incriminating material was found during the search and hence the assessment u/s. 153C is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2) the original assessment u/s. 143(3) had already been completed/concluded and concluded assessments would not abate section 153C r/ws. 153A. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel ground and submitted that the Ld. AO was not justified in extending the reassessment u/s 153C r.w.s reassessment for Ay 2012 such extensions being no the form of the asset which had escaped assessment was found in possession of the assessee. He referred to the ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 by way of raising grounds as reproduced above ready reference, grounds raised in AY 2018-19 are reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the assessment for the Asst.year in question was not pending and hence, had not abated 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) concluded in April 2021 and concluded assessments were beyond the scope of section 153C r/ws. 153A. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in ignoring the fact that there was по undisclosed income found on the basis of any incriminating material and hence the assessment is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. It is submitted that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 5. Without prejudice, on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of The assessee has also raised additional grounds challenging the validity of the proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A in all the appeals. For ready reference, raised in AY 2018-19 are reproduced as under: 1) no incriminating material was found during the search and hence the assessment u/s. 153C is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2) the original assessment u/s. 143(3) had already been completed/concluded and assessments would not abate section 153C r/ws. 153A.” Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the additional ground and submitted that the Ld. AO was not justified in extending the reassessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A beyond six assessment years reassessment for Ay 2012-13 for the reason that the assessee was not liable for no income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- which had escaped assessment was found in possession . He referred to the satisfaction note recorded by P a g e | 5 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. s as reproduced above. For 19 are reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the assessment for the Asst.year in question was not pending and hence, had not abated 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) concluded in April 2021 and concluded assessments were beyond the 3. The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in ignoring the fact that there was по undisclosed income found on the basis of any incriminating material and hence 4. It is submitted that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and n not appreciating that interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of challenging the validity . For ready reference, reproduced as under: 1) no incriminating material was found during the search and hence the 2) the original assessment u/s. 143(3) had already been completed/concluded and ” to the additional ground and submitted that the Ld. AO was not justified in extending the rs and initiating 13 for the reason that the assessee was not liable for representing in which had escaped assessment was found in possession note recorded by the AO of the assessee wherein reference 12.05.2011 between the assessee and the person been made. The said agreement to sale is situated at Pootur village of consideration of Rs. 3,70,00,000/ documents at Serial No. 21 to 24 found from the premises of Shri Uday Shetty cash component of the transaction out to Rs. 1,26,78,125/- 4,46,00,000/-. Accordingly, the AO recorded that there was difference of Rs. 2,02,78,125/- in price paid and recorded i Counsel, however, emphasized that the AO escaped assessment in the condition required for extending the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 153A beyond the period of six years was not assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 153A and accordingly, need to be quashed 8. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred ground and submitted that in view of the period of six assessment years satisfaction was recorded submitted that in case of 153C proceedings, search be reckoned from the year in which the satisfaction is recorded as against the ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 assessee wherein reference of document i.e. agreement 12.05.2011 between the assessee and the persons Shri Uday Shetty group said agreement to sale is regarding immovable property village of Udupi. As per the agreement to sale, total consideration of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- is mentioned. Further, documents at Serial No. 21 to 24 found from the premises of Shri Uday Shetty of the transaction of purchase of said property - and cheque component was worked out to Rs. . Accordingly, the AO recorded that there was difference of Rs. in price paid and recorded in agreement to sale Counsel, however, emphasized that the AO did not hold the said income as escaped assessment in the impugned assessment orders, and therefore, the required for extending the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 153A beyond was not fulfilled. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 153A passed for AY 2012-13 is without jurisdiction and accordingly, need to be quashed ab initio. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to anoth ground and submitted that in view of the satisfaction recorded on 06.12.2021 assessment years preceding the assessment satisfaction was recorded would be from AY 2021-22 to 2015- submitted that in case of 153C proceedings, search assessment the year in which the satisfaction is recorded as against the P a g e | 6 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. agreement to sale dated Shri Uday Shetty group, has regarding immovable property per the agreement to sale, total . Further, as per the documents at Serial No. 21 to 24 found from the premises of Shri Uday Shetty of purchase of said property was worked was worked out to Rs. . Accordingly, the AO recorded that there was difference of Rs. n agreement to sale. The Ld. ld the said income as and therefore, the required for extending the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 153A beyond fulfilled. Accordingly, he submitted that the 13 is without jurisdiction, another additional satisfaction recorded on 06.12.2021 , assessment year in which -16. Ld. Counsel assessment years have to the year in which the satisfaction is recorded as against the search year in case of proceedings of the six assessment years satisfaction was recorded i.e. AY 2015 assessment years i.e. AY 2015 consideration in present set of appeals assessment years beyond the same need to be quashed as 9. As regard to AY 2015 assessee submitted that in the date of the recording assessment, no addition could have been made otherwise then the aid of incriminating material. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) relied on the decision of the co Infrastructure v/s DCIT, CC others. Accordingly, he submitted that in the assessments assessment years, no addition has been made relying on any incriminating material, and therefore, in absence of such incriminating material, no is justified in those assessment years additions need to be deleted Court in the case of Abhisar Build Well ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 search year in case of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. He submitted that out x assessment years preceeding to the assessment year in which action was recorded i.e. AY 2015-16 to AY 2020- assessment years i.e. AY 2015-16, AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19 are available for in present set of appeals. He submitted that reopening of beyond the AY 2015-16 are being without jurisdiction and same need to be quashed as ab initio. AY 2015-16, AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all these cases no assessments were pending as on ing the satisfaction, and therefore, same being unabated assessment, no addition could have been made otherwise then the aid of incriminating material. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in support, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT, CC-4(2) in ITA No. 3456/Mum/2023 & . Accordingly, he submitted that in the assessments no addition has been made relying on any incriminating material, and therefore, in absence of such incriminating material, no se assessment years. Accordingly, in tho additions need to be deleted, following the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Abhisar Build WellPvt. Ltd. (Supra). P a g e | 7 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. of the Act. He submitted that out to the assessment year in which -21, only three 19 are available for reopening of the being without jurisdiction and 19, Ld. Counsel for the cases no assessments were pending as on the satisfaction, and therefore, same being unabated assessment, no addition could have been made otherwise then the aid of support, relied on the Abhisar Buildwell The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also ordinate bench in the case of Hilton 4(2) in ITA No. 3456/Mum/2023 & . Accordingly, he submitted that in the assessments in all above no addition has been made relying on any incriminating material, and therefore, in absence of such incriminating material, no addition . Accordingly, in those years, the Hon’ble Supreme 10. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied submitted that proceedings u/s 153C agreement to sale of an referred by the AO of the assessee. 11. We have heard rival submissions of the p material on record. As far as, the additional ground challenging the assessment years for the purpose of reopening u/s 153C is concerned Ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the action of the AO on t that the alleged asset in the form of agreement to sale of the nature of asset where income escaped has been determined 12. If for a moment we leave this issue aside and only examine the conditions of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Couert in the case of Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) on 06.12.2021 by the AO of the assess assessment year in which satisfaction to 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment years assessment being unabated assessment aid of the incriminating material. assessment year stand unabated. Hon’ble Bombay High court in th ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 , Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities submitted that proceedings u/s 153C were validly initiated, in an assets having value of exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/ referred by the AO of the assessee. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant far as, the additional ground challenging the assessment years for the purpose of reopening u/s 153C is concerned Ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the action of the AO on t in the form of agreement to sale of a property is not in the nature of asset where income escaped has been determined If for a moment we leave this issue aside and only examine the conditions of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Couert in the case of (Supra), we find that in view of the satisfaction recorded on 06.12.2021 by the AO of the assessee, the six years assessment year in which satisfaction is recorded would be from 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment years assessments were already completed, and therefore, same unabated assessments no addition could have been made without aid of the incriminating material. The ld DR has not disputed that all those assessment year stand unabated. In this regard, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs Continental P a g e | 8 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. orders of lower authorities and initiated, in view of the assets having value of exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- arties and perused the relevant far as, the additional ground challenging extension of the assessment years for the purpose of reopening u/s 153C is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the action of the AO on the ground property is not in the nature of asset where income escaped has been determined. If for a moment we leave this issue aside and only examine the conditions of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Couert in the case of Abhisar nd that in view of the satisfaction recorded ee, the six years preceding the recorded would be from AY 2020-21 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the , and therefore, same no addition could have been made without the The ld DR has not disputed that all those In this regard, the ratio of the decision of the CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com 78] (BombayHC) “ (i) On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of the proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment / reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated and not the assessments/reassessments already finalised assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Act. By a circular No. 8 of 2003 dated 18 (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the proceedings pending in appeal, revis finalised assessment/reassessment shall not abate. It is only because, the finalised assessments/reassessments do not abate, the appeal revision or rectification pending against finalised assessment/reassessments wo abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalised for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income stand abated cannot be accepted. of assessment made under Section 153A (1) what stands revived is the pending assessment / reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1); (ii) Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the AO assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment / reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com 78] (BombayHC) is reproduced as under: (i) On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of the proceedings Section 153A, it is only the assessment / reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated and not the assessments/reassessments already finalised assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Act. By a circular No. 8 of 2003 dated 18-9-2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the proceedings pending in appeal, revision or rectification proceedings against finalised assessment/reassessment shall not abate. It is only because, the finalised assessments/reassessments do not abate, the appeal revision or rectification pending against finalised assessment/reassessments wo abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalised for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A (1) what stands revived is the pending assessment / reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1); (ii) Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the AO while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment / reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the P a g e | 9 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 is reproduced as under: (i) On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of the proceedings Section 153A, it is only the assessment / reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated and not the assessments/reassessments already finalised for those assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Act. 2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the proceedings pending ion or rectification proceedings against finalised assessment/reassessment shall not abate. It is only because, the finalised assessments/reassessments do not abate, the appeal revision or rectification pending against finalised assessment/reassessments would not abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalised for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A (1) what stands revived is the pending assessment / reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1); (ii) Once it is held that the assessment has attained while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment / reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Income establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/ reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any mat unearthed during the proceedings, the AO while passing order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order; 13. The ratio of the Hon’ble Warehousing Corporation Court in the case of Abhisar Build settled principle, no addition could have been made in case of the unabated assessment years in all the impugned single addition has been made on the basis of therefore, following the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in Abhisar Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) no addition could have been made in the assessment years contested before us. Accordingly, additions made in all these appeals are hereby deleted and all the assessee in all the assessments the impugned assessment orders already stand deleted, the regular grounds on merit are rendered academic and hence we are not required to adjudicate at this stage. ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 dings under Section 153A of the Income establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/ reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any mat unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the AO while passing order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order;” Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of sing Corporation(supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Abhisar BuildWell P. Ltd. (supra). Thus, in view of no addition could have been made in case of the unabated all the impugned assessment years before us as n single addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material, and the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in Abhisar (Supra) no addition could have been made in the assessment years contested before us. Accordingly, additions made in all these appeals are hereby deleted and all the relevant additional ground assessments is, accordingly, allowed. Since the additions in ugned assessment orders already stand deleted, the regular grounds on merit are rendered academic and hence we are not required to adjudicate at P a g e | 10 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. dings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/ reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was search or during the 153A proceedings, the AO while passing order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) cannot disturb the Bombay High court in the case of Continental by the Hon’ble Supreme . (supra). Thus, in view of the no addition could have been made in case of the unabated before us as not a incriminating material, and the finding of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in Abhisar (Supra) no addition could have been made in the relevant assessment years contested before us. Accordingly, additions made in all these relevant additional ground raised by the Since the additions in ugned assessment orders already stand deleted, the regular grounds on merit are rendered academic and hence we are not required to adjudicate at 14. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Sd/- KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai िदनांक/Date. 11.12.2024 अिनक ेत िसंह राजपूत/ːेनो आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ / CIT 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Mumbai 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. ITA No. 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. nounced in the open court on 11.12.2024. Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : / The Appellant आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. P a g e | 11 4293, 4295, 4297, 4298, 4300 & 4302/Mum/2024 Ramee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) / ITAT, Bench, "