Case Law Details
CIT Vs M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Limited (Bombay High Court)
On perusal of Section 153A of the Act, it is manifest that it does not make any distinction between assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A of the Act in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa and in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation & Anr.(referred to supra). It has been observed that Section 153A cannot be a tool to have a second inning of assessment either to the Revenue or the Assessee. Even in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra) the assessment was under Section 143(1) of the Act and the Court held that the scope of assessment after search under Section 153A would be limited to the incriminating evidence found during the search and no further. In the said Judgment, the Judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation & Anr. (referred to supra) has been followed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1 These Appeals are for the Assessment years 2002–03 and 2003-04. The Revenue assails the Order of the Tribunal thereby allowing the Appeal of the Assessee.
2 Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of unaccounted sundry creditors (purchases) and unexplained share of the money thereby limiting the scope of Assessment under Section 153A of the Act on the basis of incriminating material discovered in the search only and thus denying the Revenue to assess the undisclosed income on basis of other evidences or post search inquiries or investigations made during subsequent Assessment proceedings. According to the learned Counsel, the Judgments relied by the Tribunal while limiting the scope of inquiry under Section 153A of the Act to the extent of discovery of incriminating material during search only is improper. The said Judgments were in respect of assessments which had taken place under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the present case, the assessment has taken place under Section 143(1) of the Act. The distinguishing feature in Sections 143(1) and 143(3) has not been considered by the Tribunal in an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act a long drawn inquiry is contemplated. It would also amount to examination of evidence. However, inquiry under Section 143 (1) of the Act is limited on the basis of return filed. In view of that the Judgments relied would not be applicable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
