Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel v. M/S. Basukinath Roadways Private Limited

Order No. 03. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.40 of 2020 And ITA No.41 of 2020 ITA No.40 of 2020 ….Principal Commissioner of Income AppellantTax (Central), Direct Tax Building, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel -versus- ….Respondent M/s. Basukinath Roadways Private Limited Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, AdvocateMr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate ITA No.41 of 2020….Principal Commissioner of Income AppellantTax (Central), Direct Tax Building, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel -versus- ….M/s. Basukinath Roadways Private RespondentLimited Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, AdvocateMr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN ORDER 17.11.2022 1. These two appeals have been directed against the common order dated 20[th] February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack bench, Cuttack in CO Nos.20 and 21/CTK/2019 dated 20[th] February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack bench, Cuttack in CO Nos.20 and 21/CTK/2019 (arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.141 and 142/CTK/2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2009-10 and 2010-11). 2. The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present appeals concern the additions made in assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act despite there being no incriminating material found during the course of search. Similar questions sought to be raised by the Revenue has been negatived by this Court by its order dated 5[th] July, 2022 in in ITA No.94 of 2018 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Vishakhapatnam v. M/s. Midas Capital Pvt. Ltd.). In coming to the above conclusion, this Court relied on the earlier two decisions of this Court in Smt. Jami Nirmala v. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar [2021] 437 ITR 573 (Orissa) and Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India [2021] 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) adopting the line of reasoning of the High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). 3. Consequently, the Court declines to frame the questions as urged by the Revenue in the present appeals. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M. S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikanta