Itxano.18742014 v. Continental Warehousingcorporation & Anr. Reported In [2016] 374 Itr 645 (Bom

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDITION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1874 OF 2014WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV ...AppellantV/s.M/s.SKS Ispat & Power Limited ...Respondent ..... Mr.Tejveer Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Beni Chaterjee, Senior Counsel with Mr.Abhishek Padwalkari/by Mr.Ranit Basu, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM :S.V.GANGAPURWALA &A.M.BADAR JJ. DATED :12[th] July 2017. P.C. 1These Appeals are for the Assessment years 2002-03and 2003-04. The Revenue assails the Order of the Tribunalthereby allowing the Appeal of the Assessee. 2Mr.Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellantcontends that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting theaddition made on account of unaccounted sundry creditors (purchases) and unexplained share of the money thereby limitingthe scope of Assessment under Section 153A of the Act on thebasis of incriminating material discovered in the search only andthus denying the Revenue to assess the undisclosed income onbasis of other evidences or post search inquiries or investigationsmade during subsequent Assessment proceedings. According tothe learned Counsel, the Judgments relied by the Tribunal whilelimiting the scope of inquiry under Section 153A of the Act to theextent of discovery of incriminating material during search only isimproper. The said Judgments were in respect of assessmentswhich had taken place under Section 143(3) of the Act. In thepresent case, the assessment has taken place under Section 143(1)of the Act. The distinguishing feature in Sections 143(1) and143(3) has not been considered by the Tribunal in an assessmentunder Section 143(3) of the Act a long drawn inquiry iscontemplated. It would also amount to examination of evidence.However, inquiry under Section 143 (1) of the Act is limited onthe basis of return filed. In view of that the Judgments reliedwould not be applicable. 3The learned Senior Advocate for the respondentsupports the order and submits that this Court has time and againheld that assessment under Section 153A of the Act would belimited to the extent of any incriminating articles, incriminatingevidence found during the search. 4Even in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v.Gurinder Singh Bawa decided by this Court, the assessment wasunder Section 143(1) of the Act. The learned Advocate relied onthe judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v.Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in [2016] 386 ITR 483 (Bom)and another Judgment of this Court in the case of TheCommissioner of Income Tax v. Continental WarehousingCorporation & Anr. reported in [2016] 374 ITR 645 (Bom). 5We have considered the arguments canvased by thelearned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of Section153A of the Act, it is manifest that it does not make any distinctionbetween assessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3).This Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A ofthe Act in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. GurinderSingh Bawa and in the case of The Commissioner of Income Taxv. Continental Warehousing Corporation & Anr.(referred tosupra). It has been observed that Section 153A cannot be a tool tohave a second inning of assessment either to the Revenue or theAssessee. Even in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v.Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra)theassessment wasunder Section 143(1) of the Act and the Court held that the scopeof assessment after search under Section 153A would be limited tothe incriminating evidence found during the search and no further.In the said Judgment, the Judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental WarehousingCorporation & Anr. (referred to supra) has been followed. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental WarehousingCorporation & Anr. (referred to supra) has been followed. 6Considering the authoritative pronouncements of thisCourt in above referred cases one of which is also with regard toassessment under Section 143(1), the issue is no longer res integraand stands concluded in the above referred Judgments. 7In light of the above, the Appeals being sanssubstantial question of law stand dismissed. No costs. ( A.M.BADAR J.) ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.)