THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A No.368 of 2014 DATE: 18.06.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Sree Lalitha Constructions, Visakhapatnam.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.368 of 2014 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 13.12.2013 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the proceedings initiated u/s 153A was bad in law and whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the AO has no jurisdiction for assessing the income of the assessee?
2. Whether the ITAT was correct in observing that search assessments cannot be done without incriminating materials?
The judgment of the learned Tribunal was rendered covering the following assessment years 2004-05 and 2010-11. However, the point, which is raised in this appeal relates to the assessment year 2006-07.
We have heard Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the relevant portion of the impugned judgment. We notice that the Tribunal, on fact, found that assessment was done on the basis of the estimated income. It was found again that there is no incriminating material and in the course of search, no books of accounts and vouchers were found and it was admitted that the M.D. consequent to the completion of the assessments, the relevant books of accounts and vouchers were shifted to a godown and they were not able to locate the relevant books of accounts. We fail to understand when the assessment was made on the estimated income, how there can be relevancy of books of accounts and for that matter, non-availability of the books of accounts could be a factor to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of fact, correctly concluded that such exercise was not called for.
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity for differing with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 18.06.2014 va/pnb