Pioncipalcommissionerof Income Tax-2, Agra v. M/S Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd

$-7 & 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 1050/2017 PIONCIPALCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-2,AGRAAppellantAppellant versus M/S CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. Respondent +ITA 1052/2017C& CM No.42541/2017 PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-2,AGRAAppellant versus M/S CHITRAKOOTMERCHANDISEPVT. LTDRespondent Present;Mr. SanjayKumar,Jr. StandingCounselwithMr. RahulChaudhary,Sr. StandingCounselfor appellant.None for respondent.Chaudhary,Sr. StandingCounselfor appellant.None for respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER %27.n.2017 1.The Revenueis aggrievedby the orderof the ITAT whichhadreversedthe findingsof the lower authorities. It is contendedthat theadditions made in the course of search assessment under Section 68 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafterreferredto as 'the Act') werevalid andjustified having regard to the facts and circumstancesof thecase. ITA NOS.1050/2017&1052/2017Signature Not Verified Pagel 2.The premises of one "Rajdarbar Group" were searched on31.07.2008.Certain documents were seized - which belonged to theassessee company. Notice was issued under Section 153C of the Acton 23.07.2010 to the assessee which responded subsequently by filingreturn of income for the concerned assessment years.The assesseewas subjected to notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.The AOcompleted the assessment by adding substantial amounts for both theyears in question i.e. 2003-04 and 2004-05.The assessee wasaggrievedand approachedthe CIT(A); affirmedthe AO's orders andtherefore appealedto the ITAT. 3.The ITAT was of the opinion that though incriminatingmaterials were seized, they could not have led to the additions madeunder Section 68 of the Act. The ITAT relied upon Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. 4.This Court is of the opinionthat no substantial question of lawarises because the ITAT merely applied the law declared in KabulChawla (supra). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 27,2017kks csanjeW sachdeva, j