Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central 4 v. Anil Mahavir Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1747 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central 4..Appellant Versus Anil Mahavir Gupta..Respondent ................... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. B.M. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate a/w Kavita Singh i/by VisheshSrivastav for the Respondent Mr. B.M. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate a/w Kavita Singh i/by VisheshSrivastav for the Respondent ................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2020. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, revenue forthe appellant and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior counsel forthe respondent. 2.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by the revenueagainst the order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "A", Mumbai in IncomeTax Appeal No. 9216/MUM/2010 for the assessment year2003-04. 3.The appeal has been preferred on the followingproposed substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in upholding that the additions made inthe assessment under Section 153A r/w Section 143(3) for A.Y.2003-04 being not based on any incriminating material found in thesearch, were beyond the scope and ambit contemplated u/S. 153A?" 4.Respondent i.e assessee was a director of the companycalled M/s. S.K.S. Ispat Ltd. 5.In the course of the arguments, Mr. Chatterjee hasplaced before the Court a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd[1]wherein this Court had dismissed the appeal of therevenue on the same question of law. Learned standingcounsel, revenue fairly submits that the present issue hasbeen answered by this Court in the case of SKS Ispat &Power Ltd (supra). 6.Relevant portion of the decision in SKS ISpat & PowerLtd (supra) reads as under:- "5. We have considered the arguments canvassed by the learned 1[2017] 398 ITR 584 (Bombay) counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of Section 153A of theAct, it is manifest that it does not make any distinction betweenassessment conducted under Section 143(1) and 143(3). This Courthad occasion to consider the scope of Section 153A of the Act in thecase of Gurinder Singh Bawa and in the case of ContinentalWarehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (referred to supra). It It hasbeen observed that Section 153A cannot be a tool to have a secondinning of assessment either to the Revenue or the assessee. Even inthe case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra), the assessmentwas under Section 143(1) of the Act and the Court held that thescope of assessment after search under Section 153A would belimited to the incriminating evidence found during the search and nofurther. In the said Judgment, the Judgment of this Court inContinental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (referred tosupra) has been followed. 6. Considering the authoritative pronouncements of this Court inabove referred cases one of which is also with regard to assessmentunder Section 143(1), the issue is no longer res integra and standsconcluded in the above referred Judgments. 7. In light of the above, the appeals being sans substantial questionof law stand dismissed. No costs." 7.In view of the above, the present appeal is alsodismissed as no substantial question of law arises from theorder of the Tribunal. No costs. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]