Case Law Details
Vivimed Labs Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Sinhaghad Technical Educational Society (2017) 84 com 290 (SC) that no such proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act sustainable in law for want of incriminating material found or seized during the course of search. We make it clear that although the Revenue has vehemently argued that there indeed exists sufficient seized material in light of the annexures attached with the DRP’s directions (supra), a perusal thereof sufficiently indicates that this so called material parts already formed of the assessee’s books which had already been considered in both the corresponding scrutiny assessments pending on the date of search. This tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (ITAT-Mum) (SB) holds that incriminating material is that material which is found during the course of search and not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property disclosed during the course of search, as the case may be. We find from a perusal of the case(s) records and more particularly in light of the DRP’s compilation of the alleged seized material it only includes the assessee’s expenses / claims or EBIDTA details etc. which could hardly be termed as anything incriminating in the foregoing terms.
Mr. Sai referred to Gopal Lal Bhadruka Vs. DCIT 346 ITR 106 (AP) that an assessing authority could also consider any other material during the search assessment. The instant plea hardly carries any substance since the question framed therein was not regarding lack of incriminating material but the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to take all other material into account in a search assessment which is not the issue before us. We thus accept the assessee’s instant legal ground to quash both these assessments thereby rendering all other pleadings on merits to have been become infructuous. Ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14 arise against the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad’s assessments; both dt.26.03.2021, framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) – 1, Bangalore’s directions; both dt.25.02.2021 in F.Nos.121 & 122/DRP-1/BNG/2019-20; respectively, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) rws 153A of the of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
