Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Nagpur M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt.Ltd, ... vs Dy . Commissioner Of Income Tax Central ... on 3 December, 2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER} LT.A No,.140/Nag/2018 2 AY 200910 L.T.A No.141/Nag/2018 AY 201011 L.A No.229/Nag/2018 AY 201112 1.T.A No. 230/Nag/2016 AY 201213 LT.A No, 231/Nag/2018 AY 201314 LT.A No,232/Nag/2018 AY 201415 1.7.A No.233/Nag/2018 _AY 201516 i Dy. CIT, Cent.Cir.2({2), | vs M/s Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt Ltd | Nagpur Sarafa Bazar, Nikalas Mandir, Itwari | Nagpur 440 002 i. a AACCK3221C . APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT | 1.T.A No.227/Nag/2018 AY 201415 LT.A No.228/Nag/2018 2 AY 201516 LTA No.234/Nag/2018 AY 201213 s Karan Kothari Jewellers | vs Pyt Ltd Sarafa Bazar, Nikalas Mandir, Itwar! Nagpur 440 002 Dy.cIT, Cent.Cir.2(2}, Nagpur AACCK3221C APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Assessee by Shri Hitesh Shah : Revenue by ShriR.kK. Baral _ "Date of hearing "23102018 ~ | _Date of pronouncement 62122018 ORDER Per G Manjunatha, AM: These seven appeals filed by the revenue and three appeals filed by the assessee aré directed against the independent orders of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals}3, Nagpur, all dated 11072018, passed against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 900910 to 201516. Since all the appeals pertain to same. assessee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2, The Revenue has raised more or less Common grounds, but for figures for all seven years. The Grounds of appeals of the department are as under: Appeal No.t40/Naq/2018 For Assessment Year 700910 L, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the learned CIT(A) erred in deteting the addition of Rs.83,94,421/ made by the AQ being gross profit on bogus aurchases, without going into the merits of the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ATA) errad in holding that during assessment u/s.153A r.w.s. 143{3), 3 was not open to the AO to make additions without existences of any incriminating documents found and seized during the search u/s.132(1) overlooking the crucial fact that the original return Filed by the assessee was only processed u/s.143(1) and no scrutiny assessment was made earlier. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the scope of section 153(A) is limited assessing only search related income, thereby denying revenue the oppartunity of taxing other escaped income that comes to the notice of the AO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years. ut bleak 5, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the iearned CIT{A) failed to appreciate that the word incriminating is neither used in section 153A nor defined in the statute and therefore, the deletion of addition on this account is not in consonance of law. Appeal No,141 /Nag/2018 For Assessment Year 201011 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT{A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.83,94,421/ made by the AO' being gross profit on bogus purchases, without going into the merits of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the fearned.CIT{A) erred. in deieting the addition of Rs.7,70,00,000/ made by the AO treating the share capital and the sharé premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act a without ~\ r z| , / On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the going into the merits of the case, 7 learned CIT{A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,70,00,000/ made by the AO treating the share capital and the share premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the LT. Act without appreciating the fact that incriminating documents were found from the residence of the directors with regard to transaction with Taranya Merchandise P. Ltd., a Kolkata based company. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT{A) erred in halding that during assessment w/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3}, if was not open to the AO to make additions without existences of any incriminating documents found and seized during the search u/s.132(1) overlooking the cructal fact that the original return filed by the assessee was oniy processed u/s.143(1}) and no serutiny _ assessment was. made earlier. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, th