Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta
[Citation -2020-LL-0121-58]

Citation 2020-LL-0121-58
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Central 4
Respondent Name Anil Mahavir Gupta
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/01/2020
Assessment Year 2004-05
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags incriminating material
Bot Summary: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench A, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 9225/MUM/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05. The appeal has been preferred on the following proposed substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding that the additions made in the assessment under Section 153A r/w Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2004-05 being not based on any incriminating material found in the search, were beyond the scope and ambit contemplated u/S. 153A 4. In the course of the arguments, Mr. Chatterjee has placed before the Court a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SKS Ispat Power Ltd1 wherein this Court had dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the same question of law. On perusal of Section 153A of the Act, it is manifest that it does not make any distinction between assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A of the Act in the case of Gurinder Singh Bawa and in the case of Continental Warehousing Corpn. Even in the case of Gurinder Singh Bawa, the assessment was under Section 143(1) of the Act and the Court held that the scope of assessment after search under Section 153A would be limited to the incriminating evidence found during the search and no further. Considering the authoritative pronouncements of this Court in above referred cases one of which is also with regard to assessment under Section 143(1), the issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded in the above referred Judgments.


11. os itxa 1649-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central 4 .. Appellant Versus Anil Mahavir Gupta .. Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant Mr. B.M. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate a/w Kavita Singh i/by Vishesh Srivastav for Respondent CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior counsel for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by revenue against order dated 31.8.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "A", Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 9225/MUM/2010 for assessment year 2004-05. 1 of 3 11. os itxa 1649-17.doc 3. appeal has been preferred on following proposed substantial question of law:- " Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in upholding that additions made in assessment under Section 153A r/w Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2004-05 being not based on any incriminating material found in search, were beyond scope and ambit contemplated u/S. 153A?" 4. Respondent i.e assessee was director of company called M/s. S.K.S. Ispat Ltd. 5. In course of arguments, Mr. Chatterjee has placed before Court decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd1 wherein this Court had dismissed appeal of revenue on same question of law. Learned standing counsel, revenue fairly submits that present issue has been answered by this Court in case of SKS Ispat & Power Ltd (supra). 6. Relevant portion of decision in SKS Ispat & Power Ltd (supra) reads as under:- "5. We have considered arguments canvassed by learned 1 [2017] 398 ITR 584 (Bombay) 2 of 3 11. os itxa 1649-17.doc counsel for respective parties. On perusal of Section 153A of Act, it is manifest that it does not make any distinction between assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Court had occasion to consider scope of Section 153A of Act in case of Gurinder Singh Bawa and in case of Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (referred to supra). It It has been observed that Section 153A cannot be tool to have second inning of assessment either to Revenue or assessee. Even in case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra), assessment was under Section 143(1) of Act and Court held that scope of assessment after search under Section 153A would be limited to incriminating evidence found during search and no further. In said Judgment, Judgment of this Court in Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (referred to supra) has been followed. 6. Considering authoritative pronouncements of this Court in above referred cases one of which is also with regard to assessment under Section 143(1), issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded in above referred Judgments. 7. In light of above, appeals being sans substantial question of law stand dismissed. No costs." 7. In view of above, present appeal is also dismissed as no substantial question of law arises from order of Tribunal. No costs. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. M. Amberkar Date: 3 of 3 Amberkar 2020.01.24 10:58:37 +0530 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta
Report Error