Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
./PAN :ABKPG9952C
/O R D E R
These are four appeals filed by the revenue and directed against the
orders dated 12.12.2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 and order dated
by the ld.CIT(A), Mumbai. Since these appeals are filed against the same
assessee and the issues involved therein are common and therefore for the
sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals were clubbed together, heard
2. At the outset the ld.AR drew our attention to a jurisdictional issue that
the AO has no jurisdiction to make the additions except on the basis of seized
materials because the assessment in all the four years had attained finality
on the date of search and therefore ,the AO had no authority under the
had attained finality on the date of search. The ld counsel drew our attention
that the issue is purely of legal nature which will go to the root of the
matter and has been raised before ld CIT(A) also but the same has been
decided against the assessee. It was explained that same was not challenged
by the assessee as relief has been granted on merit of the case by the
CIT(A). The ld counsel drew our attention to the para 3 and 3.1 of the
appellate order wherein the issue has been decided by the FAA against the
assessee.
3. Referring to the above , the ld counsel for the assessee stated that the
disturbing the assessment order which had attained finality on the date of
search without any incriminating material being found by the search team
during the course of search. The ld counsel drew our attention to the
provisions of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act which provides that all the
3
assessments which are pending on the date of search shall abate and the AO
has same jurisdiction to frame the assessment as u/s 143(3) of the Act and
disturbed except on the basis of seized materials and not otherwise. The Ld
which are complete and attained finality on the date of search, the
materials.
4. The DR. vehemently argued against taking up of this issue under rule
27 of the Rules for the reason that by taking up and deciding this ground,
tribunal cannot put the revenue in worst position than what it was before
CIT(A). The ld DR argued that the powers of the tribunal are confined to
section 254(1) of the Act wherein it has to pass orders on the subject matter
of the issue before it and the tribunal cannot go beyond it or pass orders or
give directions which do not fall within the subject matter of the appeal for
which the ld DR relied upon the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the
case of New India Insurance Company Ltd Vs CIT (1957) 31 ITR 844 (Bom)
materials including the issue of additions without being based upon the
seized materials in those assessment years which had attained finality on the
date of search as raised by the ld.AR under rule 27 of the Rules. The facts of
the case reveal that this issue was taken up by the assessee before CIT(A)
5
and he adjudicated the same d against the assessee. However, the CIT(A)
allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits, hence, assessee was not
aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). Here first of all, we have to refer to
6. We find from this rule that respondent may support an order on the
ground decided against him even though he has not appealed against an
order deciding one of the grounds against him. We further find that Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manick Sons, 74 ITR 1(SC) has
interpreted the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act and not that the rule
the order appealed against on any other ground decided against him even
tthough he may not have appealed against. It was explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the powers conferred by this sub-section is wide but still
the appeal and according to law. The Tribunal in deciding an appeal before it
must deal with question of law and fact, which arises out of an order of
Assessing Officer and that of the CIT(A). It cannot assume powers which are
inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme. Honble
Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Industrial Works vs. CIT, 59 ITR
407 (AL) has held that in case the assessee not liable to be assessed at all is
6
also a ground for showing that there should be no further increase and
assessee may resist the appeal on this ground also. In the present case
before us, the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits and
relief has been granted by deleting all the additions. The only ground
during the search proceedings. In view of the above facts we admit this
additional ground of the assessee under Rule-27 and will adjudicate the
same.
7. The ground taken by the assessee under rule 27 of the Rules dated
8. Brief facts of the case are that there was a search action conducted on
6.10.2010 in the case of M/s ARSS Infrastructure Project Limited and group
concerns and in the said search action the case of the assessee was also
covered under section 132 of the Act. Notice under section 153C of the Act
was issued to the assessee on 17.1.2013 calling upon the assessee to file
7
return of income which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of
deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1 lakh thereby declaring the
net income of Rs.2,22,609/-. The assessee filed original return of income for
total income and balance-sheet, profit and loss account declaring an income
143(3) read with section 153C of the Act vide order dated 30.3.2013 by
order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging
the order of the AO by raising specific ground that the assessment in the
current year was not pending on the date of search and therefore not
seized material were legally unlawful and without jurisdiction. However, the
ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after considering the submissions of the
6. After carefully examining the facts of the case and the above
contentions of the appellant in the appellate proceedings and referring
to the case laws relied upon by the appellant, the facts clearly indicate
that some incriminating materials were found during the course of
search u/s 132 of the Act.
8
The issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act in case of the appellant is in
accordance with the provisions of Sec-ion 132 and 153C of the Act as
the incriminating materials had been seized during the course of
Search conducted on the Gaggar Group on 06.10.2010.
Further, on going through the case laws relied upon by the appellant, it
has come to the notice that in the case of CIT vs. Murli Agro Products
Ltd (August 9th, 2014 ), (Bombay High Court) the order para No.12
and 13) the following was observed by the Honble High Court
13. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that any
material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A
proceedings which would show that the relief under Section 80HHC
was erroneous. In such a case, the A.O. while passing the assessment
order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) could not have
disturbed the assessment order finalized on 29.12.2000 relating to
Section 80HHC deduction and consequently the C.I.T. could not have
invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
In the case under reference, the material gathered during the course
of proceedings u/s 153C, the AO has gathered certain
material/information which has lead him to make additions to the
returned income and thus, the assessment done u/s 153C r.w. 143(3)
9
9. The ld. AR vehemently argued before us that the addition made by the
AO was without any jurisdiction as the same was not based upon any
drawing our attention the provisions of section 153A/153C of the Act , the ld
counsel argued that in respect of those assessments which were not pending
on the date of search, the AO could make addition only on the basis of or
with reference to the seized material and not otherwise. The ld AR stated
that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found and
section 153C of the Act. The ld. AR in defence of his argument heavily relied
on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Murli Agro Products Ltd [2014] 49
taxmann.com 172 (Bombay) and All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) Special Bench. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that
since no incriminating material was found and seized during the course of
assessment in the instant year had attained finality on the date of search.
10. The ld. DR on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of
authorities below and submitted that the material was gathered by the AO
10
therefore the AO had the material on the basis of which he rightly made
11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the
material placed before us including the orders of authorities below and the
case laws relied upon by the parties. We find that on the date of search the
assessment for the instant year had already attained finality as the return
also find from the perusal of provision of section 153C of the Act that the
AO shall assess the income in respect of six assessment years prior to the
year in which the search was conducted. It has also been provided in the
section that the assessment which are pending on the date of search shall be
abated and assessment shall be made by the AO under section 153C in the
those assessment years out of six years which are not pending on the date
of search and have attained the finality, the AO has limited jurisdiction to
make addition based upon the material seized during the course of search
and not otherwise. The Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Murli Agro
Product Limited (supra) and All cargo Global Logistics Ltd (supra) as
affirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court an identical issue has been decided
11
date of search the additions can only be made based on the search materials.
We accordingly, find merit in the contention of the ld. AR and hold that the
order of the ld.CIT(A) is wrong and cannot be sustained qua upholding the
We accordingly, set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and hold that the addition of
Rs.64 lakhs by the AO t is without jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act.
Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee under rule 27 of the ITAT
12. For assessment year 2007-08,2008-09 and 2009-10 , the returns were
conducted on 6.10.2010. It is clear from the above dates of filing return and
date of search that the assessments for three years had attained finality on
the date of search and therefore any additions can only be based upon the
seized materials and not otherwise. In all these years the assessee has raised
need not to go into the grievances raised by the revenue in its appeals.
12
dismissed accordingly.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 21st Dec,2016.
Sd sd
/ BY ORDER,
True copy
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
,
/ ITAT, Mumbai