Case Law Details
PCIT Vs Vikas Telecom Ltd (Delhi High Court)
In this case the learned Assessing Officer while farming the assessment order has not referred to any seized documents belonging to the assessee found during the course of search proceedings. In the remand proceedings the learned Assessing Officer has also submitted that no any incriminating materials have been referred to while framing the assessment order. A perusal of the seized documents and their description revealed that the seized documents mentioned in the satisfication note do not relate to the accommodation entry transactions. The case laws relied by the learned Departmental Representative are not applicable in the present facts of the case and the learned DR could not bring any cogent material for justifying the order of the Assessing Officer. There was no pending assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 at the time of search. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no addition could be made u/s. 153C of the Act without reference of any incriminating material found in the course of search.
In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was also found during the search, based on which the impugned addition could have been made in the assessment order u/s. 153C. We also do not find any reference to any such material found during the search which led the Assessing Officer to make the impugned addition. The assessment order does not outline any details of the documents which were belonging to the assessee and were seized in the search dated 31.07.2008 so as to acquire the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act. Therefore, in view of the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), in our opinion, no addition can be made in proceedings u/s. 153C in case of completed assessment. The learned Department Representative could not be able to controvert the contention of the assessee that no assessment was pending for the impugned year for abatement, as the time for making any scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) stood expired on 31.12.2005. The ld. DR also failed to adduce any incriminating material found in the search leading to the impugned addition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
