Case Law Details
Kusumlata Sonthalia vs. PCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Preliminary issue of whether the addition could be framed u/s 153A of the Act in respect of a concluded proceeding without the existence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search. The scheme of the Act provides for abatement of pending proceedings as on the date of search. It is not in dispute that the assessment for the Asst. Year 2010-11 was originally completed and thereafter a search and seizure action was conducted on 05.03.2015, therefore, assessment year 2010-11 is an unabated assessment. Hence unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to such concluded year, the statute does not confer any power on the ld AO to disturb the findings given thereon and income determined thereon, as finality had already been reached thereon, and such proceeding was not pending on the date of search to get itself abated.
Therefore, in assessee’s case original assessment was completed much prior to search and seizure therefore the assessment year under consideration, that is, A.Y. 2010-11 is unabated and in unabated proceedings, the AO cannot disturb the findings given thereon in the original assessment unless there is incriminating material unearthed by the search team, since in assessee’s case under consideration there is no incriminating material therefore order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
We also note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is “null” in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT.
Facts of the case
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
