IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.165 & 166/Lkw/2016 Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2010-11 AAA Paper Marketing Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, 26/6 East Patel Nagar, 10/503 Allen Ganj, New Delhi Kanpur (UP) 208 001 PAN AACCS 4575 k (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Shri J.S. Minhas, DR Date of hearing 26/07/2016 Date of pronouncement 20/09/2016 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM. 1. These appeals are preferred by assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 28.03.2016 for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2010- 11. Since both appeals relate to same assessee and in both appeals common issue is involved except change in figure. Therefore, we decide to dispose of both these appeals by way of this common order for sake of convenience. 2. Both parties agreed that whatever views this Tribunal may take in ITA No. 165/Lkw/2016, same view may be taken in ITA No.166/Lkw/2016 of Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. grounds taken by assessee in ITA No.165/Lkw/2016 of Assessment Year 2006-07 is reproduced as under:- 2 1. That on facts and circumstances of case, order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeal) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts. 2. action of CIT(A) affirming assessment under section 153A is wrong in as much as same is not in consonance with settled position of law vis-a-vis search cases. 3. That Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding assessment ignoring settled position of law that provisions of section 153A in case where proceedings are not pending could be applied in absence of any incriminating material. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming additions to extent of Rs.25,00,000/- made by AO without appreciating documentary evidences on record. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating fact that assessee has duly established three pillars of Section 68 of Income Tax Act vis-a-vis identity of all share applicants, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share-applicants. 6. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not appreciating fact that assessee has duly complied with all details as required and that assessee has discharged his onus by duly explaining share application money. 7. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit in account. 8. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by sustaining addition even though no material was bought on surface by Ld. AO or CIT(A) to fortify impugned addition. 9. That impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 10. That Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/ all grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing of Appeal. 4. brief facts of case are that assessee is limited company having business of trading of waste paper. net profit of business for year under consideration was 9,14,559.13. search u/s 132 of Act was conducted on premises of assessee company on 22.09.2011. Subsequently notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) r.w.s. 153A of Act was issued. 3 During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that during year consideration assessee company had received share application money of Rs.88,00,000/-. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to explain said share application money. 5. It was noted that during course of search & seizure operation, certain documents were seized by search party A-24 at Office of Kanatal Resorts & Spa Pvt. Ltd. 26/06, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It was also noted that on analysis of these documents it was found that assessee had raised share capital/share application money during relevant accounting period. This application money was found to be introduced through various companies. Assessing Officer added Rs.88,00,000/- u/s 68 of Act to total income of assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee has preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. relevant observation of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: It may be seen from report of A.O. that no statement of bank account has been furnished in respect of M/s. Satwant Singh Sodhi Construction (P) Ltd,, New Delhi which prevented A.O, from commenting on genuineness of transaction, credit worthiness of share applicant. In this context, cases relied upon (supra) are distinguishable on facts in as much as details of bank statement of share applicants were not furnished before A.O. 5.6 In respect of remaining applicants, it may be seen that in light of submission of appellant and various case laws relied upon by him (mentioned supra) onus cast upon him is sufficiently discharged. Moreover, replies furnished by share applicants during assessment proceedings were not considered at all by A.O. at time of making assessment, Only addition in respect of M/s. Satwant Singh Sodhi Construction (P) Ltd., New Delhi amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- is hereby confirmed and remaining addition of Rs.63,00,000/- is deleted. 8. Since no incriminating documents were seized or recovered from premises of appellant in respect of above said additions and assessment 4 proceedings were not pending with Assessing Officer and it is supported by facts itself that assessee company filed its return of income on 25.11.2006 for Assessment Years 2006-07 and for Assessment Years 2010-11 return of income was filed on 25.09.2010 and proceeded on 23.02.2011, whereas search and seizure operation took place u/s 132 of Act on 25.09.2011 and it is pertinent mention here that no assessment for both years were pending. Therefore, in view of judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) we noted that these matters related to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2010-11. On date of search assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during search, no addition can be made to income already assessed. Therefore, both appeals of assessee are decided in favour of assessee. 9. In result, both appeals of assessee are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- [P.K. BANSAL] [MAHAVIR PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 20.09.2016 Aks Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar AAA Paper Marketing Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur (UP)