SHEFALI AGGARWAL,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

ITA 41/DEL/2020

AI Insights

This case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue and the assessee against the orders of the ld.CIT(A), which were based on the assessments made by the ld.AO under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The primary legal contention revolved around whether the completed assessments could be interfered with by the AO without incriminating material, referencing the precedent in Kabul Chawla 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi). The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in law by relying on this precedent, which was contested in the context of the specific assessments for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. The CIT(A)'s decision was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which clarified the applicability of incriminating material in unabated years for search assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41761 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., CIT (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEL
• Section: 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. & Assessment Year Appellant Respondent Assessee by Revenue by 136/Del/2020 2011-12 DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi Rameshwer Dass, 97, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, New Delhi PAN: AAAPD2587R Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CA, & Shri Jaiyant Jaiswal, Advocate Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR 137/Del/2020 2012-13 - DO - - DO - - DO - - Do - 138/Del/2020 2013-14 - DO - - DO - - DO - - Do - 139/Del/2020 2014-15 - DO - - DO - - DO - - do – 42/Del/2020 2011-12 Rameshwer Dass, 5873, Top Floor, Malka Ganj Chowk, Jawahar Nagar, New Delhi PAN: AAAPD2587R DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi - DO - - DO - 41/Del/2020 2014-15 Shefali Aggarwal 5873, Top Floor, Malka Ganj Chowk, Jawahar Nagar, New Delhi PAN: ABJPA4649K - DO - - DO - - DO - Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 ITAs No.136 to 139/Del/2020 & ITA Nos.41 & 42/Del/2020 2 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the Assessees against the orders of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:- ITA No. & Assessment Year CIT(A) who passed the order Appeal No. & Date of order of the CIT(A) AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order Section of the IT Act under which the AO passed the order 136/Del/2020 2011-12 CIT(A)- 23, New Delhi 34 to 40/2019-20, Dated 31.10.2019 DCIT, Central Circle- 03, New Delhi. Dated 30.12.2018 153C r.w.s. 153A 137/Del/2020 2012-13 - DO- - DO - - Do - - DO - 138/Del/2020 2013-14 - DO- - DO - - DO - - DO - 139/Del/2020 2014-15 - DO- - DO - - DO - - DO - 42/Del/2020 2011-12 - DO- - DO - - DO - - DO - 41/Del/2020 2014-15 - DO- 41/2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle- 03, New Delhi. Dated 26.12.2018 - DO - 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the grounds of the Revenue are very ambiguously worded as follows:- “1. Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in relying on the ratio held in Kabul Chawla 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) and in holding that completed assessment could not be interfered by the AO without ITAs No.136 to 139/Del/2020 & ITA Nos.41 & 42/Del/2020 3 incriminating material. On the contrary, for making the assessment u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, the Act does not stipulate any such conditionality on AO. 2. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. After hearing the ld. DR, we find that except for the contentions in support of the ground in general terms and supporting the order of the ld. AO, the ld. DR could not cite and rely specific material, for each AY involved separately or commutatively, which was relied by the Ld. AO and which has been otherwise considered to be not incriminating piece of evidence by the ld.CIT(A), to quash the impugned additions. The settled proposition of law, after the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxman.com 399/293 Taxman 141/459 ITR 212 being that in case of unabated years the assessment in search cases can be on the basis of incriminating material, for that relevant AY, seized in search alone. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the then binding precedent in the case of CIT (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), which has been considered and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra). Thus, the order of the ld.CIT(A) requires no intervention. The grounds have no substance the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. ITAs No.136 to 139/Del/2020 & ITA Nos.41 & 42/Del/2020 4 4. As regards the assessee’s appeals, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals by a statement of ld. Counsel made at the Bar. The appeals of the assessee are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02nd April, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "