DCIT vs Ksheer Sagar Developers: ITAT Jaipur on Section 153A Search Assessment Limits

This case examines the jurisdictional perimeter of search assessments under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITAT Jaipur, in five consolidated Revenue appeals spanning assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, considered whether the Assessing Officer could sustain additions — including disallowances under sections 43B and 69C — in the absence of incriminating material discovered during search, and whether the CIT(A) was correct in directing assessment on the basis of the assessee's books of accounts. The outcome affirms a well-established but frequently contested proposition: where no assessment is pending and no incriminating material is found, the scope of a section 153A assessment is not coextensive with a full de-novo scrutiny.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
• Date: 31 August 2021
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 43B, 69C
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of running a hotel — Hotel Royal Orchid — at Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur. For the lead assessment year 2011-12, the assessee filed a return of income under section 139(1) declaring a loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/-, which included a deduction of Rs. 13,86,30,120/- claimed under section 35AD of the Act. A search under section 132 of the Act was subsequently conducted at the assessee's premises.

Following the search, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 153A on 27 April 2015, and the assessee company complied by filing a return on 18 May 2015 declaring the same loss as in the original return. The AO completed assessment under sections 153A/143(3) at a total income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by: (i) disallowing the entire section 35AD deduction of Rs. 13,86,30,120/-; (ii) making an addition of Rs. 8,59,200/- under section 69C on the ground that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence — specifically the address, PAN, and TIN — of its suppliers; and (iii) making a disallowance of Rs. 19,39,232/- under section 43B on account of non-payment of interest during the relevant financial year.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO — except petty expenses — and directed the AO to assess income on the basis of the books of accounts, characterising the AO's action of rejecting the books as highly arbitrary. The Revenue then filed five appeals before ITAT Jaipur (ITA Nos. 1158 to 1162/JP/2019) challenging the CIT(A)'s orders, all dated 31 July 2019, covering assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16. The Tribunal heard all five appeals together and passed a common order, treating ITA No. 1158/JP/2019 for AY 2011-12 as the lead case.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without reference to incriminating material — specifically the cash purchase documents (Annexure-A-2) seized during the search under section 132.
• Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the books of accounts when the assessee had not furnished bills of entry to demonstrate that plant and machinery items were actually received in India and used for business purposes.
• Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 35AD despite the assessee not having filed the prescribed report in Form No. 10CCB along with the return of income, and not having obtained the requisite classification for the hotel property.
• Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,31,856/- under section 43B on account of non-payment of interest, and the addition of Rs. 8,59,200/- under section 69C for failure to produce documentary evidence of suppliers.
• Whether, for years where no assessment was pending at the time of search, additions under section 153A could be made in the absence of incriminating material having a nexus with the documents found in search.

---

What the court held

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals across all five assessment years. The operative disposition runs against the Revenue on all grounds taken in the lead case, consistent with the outcome_direction recorded in the source as "Taxpayer succeeded."

The central reasoning of the Tribunal — drawn from the assessee's written submissions reproduced in the order and the judicial position set out therein — turned on the jurisdictional limits of a section 153A assessment for years where no assessment was pending at the time of search. The assessee's position, accepted by the CIT(A) and undisturbed by the ITAT, was that the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 143(2) had already expired for the years under appeal; accordingly, no assessment was pending when the search was conducted. In such circumstances, the law permits additions under section 153A only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search — meaning books of account or other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the original assessment, or undisclosed income or property discovered during search. Routine additions without any nexus to documents found in search are not permissible.

On the specific ground relating to the seized documents (Annexure-A-2), the assessee demonstrated before the CIT(A) — and the position was maintained before the Tribunal — that the papers seized were merely bills for bricks purchased from local unregistered dealers for use in construction of the hotel, that payment was made in cash without violating section 40A(3), and that those purchases were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts. The AO's finding that evidence of "out-of-books" purchases/expenses had been found was therefore characterised as without basis and arbitrary. The soft copy of the books of accounts was available before the AO, and the AO did not offer any substantive comment on the entries. On the section 43B and section 69C additions, the CIT(A)'s deletions were upheld consistently with the overall finding that the additions lacked support from incriminating material discovered in search. The Tribunal relied on the position settled in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum)(SB) — upheld by the Bombay High Court — and referred additionally to CIT vs Kabul Chawla, both of which appear in the order's text.

---

Strategy observations

1. Jurisdictional ground raised before the Tribunal: An additional jurisdictional argument was raised before the Tribunal — that for years where the section 143(2) notice-issuance window had expired, no assessment was pending at the time of search, and therefore section 153A additions were confined to incriminating material. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals on this basis, making the individual merits of each addition (section 35AD, section 43B, section 69C) largely academic for the non-pending years.

2. Books of accounts as the evidentiary anchor: The assessee maintained throughout — before the AO in remand proceedings, before the CIT(A), and before the Tribunal — that the books of accounts were available, that the seized documents were already reflected therein, and that the AO had not brought any specific instance or evidence to contradict the book entries. The CIT(A) rejected the rejection of books as "highly arbitrary," and the ITAT upheld that characterisation.

3. Reliance on the Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistic: The assessee's written submissions reproduced in the order cited All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum)(SB) — upheld by the Bombay High Court — as the governing authority on the scope of section 153A assessments in non-pending years. The order specifically extracts the Special Bench's answer distinguishing between abated and non-abated assessments, noting that in non-abated assessments only incriminating material forms the basis for additions.

4. Consolidated hearing of five appeals: All five appeals (ITA Nos. 1158 to 1162/JP/2019) covering AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 were heard together and disposed of by a common order, with ITA No. 1158/JP/2019 for AY 2011-12 serving as the lead case. The common-issues approach streamlined the disposal and meant that the jurisdictional and evidentiary findings applied uniformly across all years.

5. Revenue's position limited to supporting the AO's order: The Revenue's representative before the Tribunal supported the AO's order without — per the source — producing any additional material to demonstrate either that incriminating documents went beyond what the assessee had explained, or that the books of accounts were genuinely unreliable. The absence of such material appears to have been a decisive factor in the outcome.

---

Why this case matters

This ruling contributes to the well-developed line of authority on the restricted scope of section 153A assessments in cases where the regular assessment proceedings were not pending (i.e., non-abated years) at the time the search was conducted. The Tribunal's affirmation — following the All Cargo Global Logistic Special Bench and CIT vs Kabul Chawla line — reiterates that section 153A does not confer unlimited de-novo assessment powers on the AO for all six years. Where no assessment is pending and no genuine incriminating material is unearthed, additions on grounds such as section 43B interest disallowances or section 69C unexplained expenditure cannot be sustained merely because a search has been conducted.

For tax research purposes, the case is a useful illustration of how the CIT(A)'s factual findings — specifically the characterisation of a books-rejection as "highly arbitrary" — can withstand appellate scrutiny at the ITAT level when the Revenue fails to demonstrate a nexus between seized documents and the additions made. The case also demonstrates the breadth of issues that can arise in a single search-assessment cycle: the same order addresses section 35AD eligibility conditions, section 43B timing of payment, and section 69C supplier-identification requirements, all resolved in the assessee's favour on the common ground of absent incriminating material.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87273500/