AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) [in short, the “PCIT”], Delhi’s-3 order dated 31.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1075348114(1), dated 31.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 263 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 herein is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s section 153C assessment framed in its case on 27.02.2024, as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue thereby restoring the same back to him for yet another ground of enquiries and assessment in question.
A Few relevant facts may be noticed:
There is hardly any dispute that the assessee had filed his original return on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,31,410/- which followed section 143(3) assessment framed in his case on 12.12.2017 assessing the total income of Rs.28,47,930/- which included section 68 unexplained cash credits addition amounting to Rs.20,53,759/- along with unexplained expenditure of Rs.63,044/- thereupon; respectively.
We further notice that the learned departmental authorities carried out a search dated 11.09.2010 in M/s Shah group of cases. The same led to initiation of section 153C proceedings against the assessee finally culminating in the Assessing Officer’s assessment in issue dated 27.02.2024 in his case. It is this latter search assessment which is sought to be revised by the learned PCIT for the reason that the assessee had sold shares of M/s. Safak Herbs Ltd. which has nowhere been subjected to any enquiries or notice at the Assessing Officer’s behest. He accordingly holds that such an inaction on the Assessing Officer’s part renders the same as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.
It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue could hardly dispute that the sole reason of the assessee’s alleged bogus capital gains had nowhere emanated from the twin rounds of section 153C satisfaction recorded after the search in issue dated 11.09.2018. We further make it clear that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search; be it under section 153A or 153C 1st proviso; as the case may be, wherein any addition has to be made strictly based on the specific seized material only going by PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). There is no material in the case file indicating the factual position to the contrary in the department’s favour. We thus find merit in the assessee’s vehement legal contentions that the learned PCIT’s impugned order could have neither termed the Assessing Officer’s assessment as an erroneous nor that causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. The same stands reversed in very terms therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.