AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 30.09.2025 passed in DIN and order no.11177/16-17/Ggn CIT(A)-3, involving proceedings under section 153A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that the assessee/appellant before us canvasses its first and foremost ground challenging validity of the impugned addition of Rs. 6,05,38,594/- made in the assessment dated 29.03.2016 framed by the learned DCIT, CC-1, Gurgaon u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We wish to make it clear that the learned departmental authorities had carried out section 132 search action herein in M/s Antariksh Group of cases; including the assessee, on 05.02.2014 which renders the assessment year A.Y. 2011-12 herein as “unabated” one wherein any addition is to based on the specific incriminated material only going by PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).
This being the clinching legal position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that what all the learned Assessing Officer has added in the assessee’s hands is an estimated sum @ 20% of its receipts amounting to Rs. 30,26,92,970/- going by AS-9 i.e., Percentage Completion Method. We thus conclude in this clinching factual backdrop that such a change in method of accounting at the learned Assessing Officer’s behest could not be termed as an instance of any incriminating material so as to concur with impugned addition forming the sole subject matter of our instant adjudication. The same is directed to be deleted in very terms therefore.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.