AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 30.06.2018 passed in Case No. 384/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2017-18, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has filed its Rule 27 petition in the Revenue’s instant appeal seeking to challenge the learned Assessing Officer’s section 153A assessment framed on 26.12.2017 itself as non-est in the eyes of law. This is for the precise reason that he appears to have himself made it clear in para 4 of the assessment order that the corresponding incriminating material had been found/seized from the residence of Sh. Arivinder Dhingra, the then director of M/s. Spaze Group, than that from its possession.
Learned counsel’s case in this factual backdrop is that going by PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain HUF (2021) 133 taxmann.com 288 (Del), the assessee was required to be proceeded against only under section 153C of the Act qua the said seized material which could not have formed subject matter of addition in section 153A proceedings.
The Revenue vehemently supports the impugned assessment that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition in issue of Rs.2,33,38,000/- in the assessee’s hands regarding its undisclosed/unrecorded income.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s twin submissions; be it on legality or on merits; of the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that the foregoing case law has settled the issue against the department that even if it is in the same search, any incriminating document is found/seized from a third-party premises, it ought to be proceeded u/s 153C proceedings in third person’s case. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion at pages 4 onwards has placed reliance on the learned Income Tax Settlement Commission adjudication deciding against the addition in case of M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt Ltd. as not having been substantiated with cogent evidence. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its above Rule 27 petition.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.