Delhi High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Archana Saluja on 10 February, 2022
$~A- 2 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 999/2019
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, CGSC.
versus
ARCHANA SALUJA ..... Respondent
Through: None
WITH
+ ITA 1011/2019
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, CGSC.
versus
ANKUSH SALUJA ..... Respondent
Through: None
AND
+ ITA 1016/2019
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, CGSC.
versus
SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
22:54:31 ITA 999/2019 and connected appeals Page 1 of 3
% Date of Decision: 10th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') had dismissed the
appeals filed by the revenue holding that no addition can be made under
Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as the assessments of
the respondents had attained finality prior to the date of search and no
incriminating document or material had been found and/or seized at the time
of search under Section 132 of the Act.
3. When the present appeals were listed for hearing on 17th December,
2019, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue had referred to the Remand
Report submitted by the Assessing Officer vide its letter dated 14th
December, 2015 in which it was stated as under:-
"In this connection, it is submitted that during the search dated
12.01.2012, on the basis of seized documents (page 101
Annexure A-22), the assessee group made disclosure of
additional income on account of undisclosed loans/ advances.
Since the issue involved in documents seized during the search
was loans/ advances, therefore, during assessment proceedings
under Section 153A in pursuance of search dated 12.01.2012, the
assessee was asked to prove the loans/ advances. The assessee
failed to prove these credits during assessment proceedings and
accordingly additions were made under Section 68 of I.T. Act.
Therefore, the plea taken by the assessee that nothing adverse
was found during search does not hold good. Further in majority
of cases such loans have not been squared up or repaid. Hence
plea of assessee is not acceptable."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
4. The learned predecessor Division Bench vide order dated 17th
December, 2019 had directed learned counsel for the appellant/revenue to
place on record the original seized documents (Page 101, Annexure A-22) as
referred to in the Remand Report on or before the next date of hearing.
However, despite lapse of more than two years, the said document has not
been placed on record.
5. Today, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has received the
said document from a colleague who is handling a similar appeal filed
against the respondents.
6. This Court is of the view that the ITAT is the final fact-finding
Authority. If it has erroneously come to a conclusion that no incriminating
material had been found during the course of search under Section 132 of
the Act, the appellant should have filed an application under Section 254 of
the Act before the ITAT.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the
present appeals with liberty to file an application under Section 254 of the
Act before the ITAT. With the aforesaid liberty, the present appeals stand
disposed of. However, this Court clarifies that the rights and contentions of
all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:13.02.2022
