IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Binita Halder, BB-261, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata - 700064 [PAN: AFWPH1160B] ......................…...……………....Appellant vs.

PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, (Poorva), 110, Shjantipalli, Kolkata - 700107 ...…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Department represented by : Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 20.08.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 22.08.2024

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata (for short ‘the PCIT’), dated 18.03.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022, passed under Section

153A of the Act.

2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated

18.03.2024 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld. PCIT is bad in law and is need to be quashed.

2. That the Ld. PCIT while passing the order dated 18.03.2024 under section

263 ignored the settled position that no addition can be made in the assessment made under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without having any incriminating material.

3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order which is the subject matter of the revisionary proceeding itself deserves to be quashed since no incriminating material was found during the course of search carried out at the assessee on 23.11.2018 and that AY 2017-18 is a complete and unabated assessment year, no addition could be made without recourse to any seized material. Reliance placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buldwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) Reliance also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1270/Kol/2013 dated 01.05.2023 in support of the contention that validity of the assessment proceedings can be challenged in the course of appeal filed against the order u/s 263 of the Act.

4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supporting the order of the Ld. PCIT.

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the mater placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and was part of ‘Hospitality Group Cases’ and subjected to search and seizure operation carried out u/s. 132 of the Act on 13.01.2021. As stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee regular return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee u/s. 139(1) of the Act and the limit within which notice under section 143(2) could have been issued by AO expired (i.e. 03.09.2018) much before the search & seizure operation carried out on 13.01.2021. Also no assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 was pending as on the date of search. It is thus not disputed at the end of both the parties that the impugned assessment year is falling under the category of complete and unabated assessment year. Further, perusal of the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 reveals that there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search and no addition has been made in the assessment order framed u/s. 153A of the Act. We further observe that the said assessment order dated 25.03.2022 and the assessment records were examined by Ld. Pr. CIT under the revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act and he noticed that the assessee has purchased a flat at the consideration value of Rs. 34,19,684/- (including Rs. 3,62,690/- as Stamp Duty and Rs. 56,994/- as Registration