SHRI SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR V. DCIT, C. C., JAMSHEDPUR

ITSSA 2/RAN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha, who appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, concerning the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. The appeals were initially delayed due to the non-filing by the previous counsel, which was later condoned. The primary contention was that no seized material was used in the assessments for A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2009-10, and thus, these assessments should be quashed based on the Supreme Court's precedent. For A.Y. 2010-11, although the assessment was unabated, the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence during the remand proceedings to substantiate his claims regarding the source of certain bank deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312538 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHADAB AHMED
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARWAN KUMAR JHA
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH, RANCHI (Virtual Hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM IT(SS)A No. 02/RAN/2020, 44 to 49/RAN/2020 (Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 to 2010-11) Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha H.No.80, Road no. 01, Sankosai, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, 831012 Vs. DCIT, C. C. DCIT, C.C.,Jsr., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, 831012 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ALBPS6982R Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AR Revenue by : Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT DR Date of hearing: 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are delayed appeals, in ITA No. 02/RAN/2020 for A.Y. 2004- 05 and ITA Nos. 44 to 49/RAN/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur 1, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal nos. 511-517/JSR/2011-12 dated 31.10.2024 for the AYs 04-05 to 10-11. 02. Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AR, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT DR, represented on behalf of the Revenue. Page | 2 ITA Nos.02, 44 to 49/RAN/2020 Shri Sashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha; A.Ys. 04-05 to 10-11 03. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 02/RAN/2020 for A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA Nos. 44 to 49/RAN/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11 are delayed by 1910 days. It was submitted that the delay was on account of non-filing of the appeal by the earlier counsel Shri Mihir Bandopadhyay, who is also no more. The assessee has also filed the necessary affidavit giving the reasons for the delay. The reasons are found to be plausible and the same are not found to be false. Consequently, the delay in filing of all these appeals are condoned and same are being disposed off on merits. 04. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search in the case of the assessee on 31.10.2009. The assessments for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2009-10 are abated assessments and A.Y. 2010-11 was unabated assessment. The ld. AR submitted that on perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no seized material has been found for any of the assessment years which have been completed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC), the assessments have not been done by considering any of the seized material, the same is liable to be quashed. It was the submission that in respect of unabated assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, it was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. AO and the assessee would produce the details of the son’s bank account before the ld. Assessing Officer. 05. In reply the ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. CIT (A) & Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the additions have been made on the basis of deposit in the bank account of the assessee. In reply to the specific query as to whether the bank account in respect of which the additions have been questioned by the ld. AO are disclosed Page | 3 ITA Nos.02, 44 to 49/RAN/2020 Shri Sashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha; A.Ys. 04-05 to 10-11 bank accounts. It was fairly agreed by the ld. CIT DR that the three bank accounts referred to by the AO were the disclosed bank accounts of the assessee. 06. We have considered rival submissions. On perusal of the assessment order, it clearly shows that the assessments have been made by disputing certain credit entries representing the amounts received from the two unmarried sons of the assessee. The assessments do not refer to any specific seized material found in the course of search which led to additions. This being so in respect of for the A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2009-10 as no incriminating material has been found or seized in the course of assessments for the impugned assessment year, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Supra), the assessments are found to be unsustainable in law and consequently quashed. 07. In so far as A.Y. 2010-11, being in respect of ITA No. 49/RAN/2020, it is noticed that this is an unabated assessment. On perusal of the order the ld. CIT (A) clearly shows that the remand report have been called for by the ld. CIT (A) and in the remand proceedings, the ld. AO has categorically mentioned that the assessee has not produced the bank account of the two sons, to support the claim of the transfer of the funds from the sons to the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce the relevant evidences before the ld. CIT (A) and even in the remand proceedings also the assessee failed to produce the evidences. Now, the prayer to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication is nothing but a delay tatic. This being so as no evidence has been produced even before us to prove the deposits from the bank accounts of the sons of assessee, the additions as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT Page | 4 ITA Nos.02, 44 to 49/RAN/2020 Shri Sashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha; A.Ys. 04-05 to 10-11 (A) stands upheld. The appeal in ITA No. 49/RAN/2020, stands dismissed. 08. In the result, the appeals in ITA No. 02/RAN/2020, 44 to 48/RAN/2020, stands allowed and ITA No. 49/RAN/2020 stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "