Introduction: In a significant legal triumph, Meena Nayyar recently secured a favorable outcome in four separate income tax appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘E’. The appeals, spanning assessment years 2011-12 through 2015-16, were filed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, dated 29.08.2019.
Background: The crux of Meena Nayyar’s case rested on the contention that the additions made to her income were devoid of any incriminating material. The assessments were conducted under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation on 18.11.2016 in Nayyar Group cases by the Investigation Wing of the Department.
Key Arguments: Meena Nayyar argued that the additions in question were not supported by incriminating material discovered during the search. Instead, the Assessing Officer based the assessments on documents submitted during the assessment proceedings.
Legal Precedent: The legal foundation of Meena Nayyar’s case drew inspiration from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of Kabul Chawla. The court’s decision emphasized that additions made under section 153A must be supported by incriminating material found during the search.
ITAT Decision: After careful consideration of the submissions and a thorough review of the orders of the authorities below, the ITAT concurred that no incriminating material had been found during the search to substantiate the additions. The tribunal applied the legal principles established in the Kabul Chawla case, emphasizing that assessments must be based on seized material.
Landmark Outcome: As a result, Meena Nayyar emerged victorious in all four appeals, with the ITAT ruling in her favor. The additions made to her income were deemed unsustainable in law, given the absence of incriminating material.
Conclusion: Meena Nayyar’s success in these income tax appeals not only underscores the importance of legal precedents but also reaffirms the principle that assessments under section 153A must be founded on concrete evidence discovered during a search. This victory sets a precedent for similar cases, providing clarity on the criteria for making additions to income in post-search assessments.
Meena Nayyar vs ACIT, Central Circle 20,New Delhi
