Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/IDDTF_216.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 177 Views


The Tax Publishers Multiple assessments for same year with appeals post facto search and seizure operations - sustainability of additions thereto *Facts:* Assessee filed her return reporting total income of Rs. 18.38 crores which was enhanced to Rs. 21.37 crores under Section 143(3) (scrutiny assessment) by disallowing Section 54F deduction. This was appealed to CIT(A) who quashed the assessment order thereby the income reported of Rs. 18.38 crores was held to be the correctly declared income. Revenue did not appeal against this verdict. Subsequently arising out of a search and seizure operation the assessee's case was also reopened once again under Section 153A/143(3) the income was held to be Rs. 21.37 crores by the AO without making any additions/modifications arising out of the search/seizure. This order under Section 153A/143(3) was also appealed to the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by this revenue went in appeal to ITAT citing that the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the appeal of the assessee - Held against the revenue that once the original assessment order was upheld by the CIT(A) the income of the assessee was confirmed as Rs. 18.38 crores. There was no action from the revenue with further appeal on this order of CIT(A). Post facto revenue cannot once again allege that the income of Rs. 21.37 crores was the correct income. It is also factual that no income was added in the search and seizure operations either so the assessment orders came to an end with the appeal verdict of the original assessment order itself. *Ed. Note:* To understand the above facts, fine print reading is required which is what makes this decision a worthy read. *Case:* DCIT v. Anita Singhal 2023 TaxPub(DT) 4518 (Del-Trib)

The Tax Publishers

Multiple assessments for same year with appeals post facto search and seizure operations - sustainability of additions thereto

Facts:

Assessee filed her return reporting total income of Rs. 18.38 crores which was enhanced to Rs. 21.37 crores under Section 143(3) (scrutiny assessment) by disallowing Section 54F deduction. This was appealed to CIT(A) who quashed the assessment order thereby the income reported of Rs. 18.38 crores was held to be the correctly declared income. Revenue did not appeal against this verdict.

Subsequently arising out of a search and seizure operation the assessee's case was also reopened once again under Section 153A/143(3) the income was held to be Rs. 21.37 crores by the AO without making any additions/modifications arising out of the search/seizure.

This order under Section 153A/143(3) was also appealed to the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by this revenue went in appeal to ITAT citing that the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the appeal of the assessee -

Held against the revenue that once the original assessment order was upheld by the CIT(A) the income of the assessee was confirmed as Rs. 18.38 crores. There was no action from the revenue with further appeal on this order of CIT(A). Post facto revenue cannot once again allege that the income of Rs. 21.37 crores was the correct income. It is also factual that no income was added in the search and seizure operations either so the assessment orders came to an end with the appeal verdict of the original assessment order itself.

Ed. Note: To understand the above facts, fine print reading is required which is what makes this decision a worthy read.

Case: DCIT v. Anita Singhal 2023 TaxPub(DT) 4518 (Del-Trib)