Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Central) v. M/S. Basukinath Roadways Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ITA No.40 of 2020 And ITA No.41 of 2020 ITA No.40 of 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Direct Tax Building, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam.
....
Appellant Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel -versusM/s. Basukinath Roadways Private Limited ....
Respondent Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate ITA No.41 of 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Direct Tax Building, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam.
....
Appellant Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel -versusM/s. Basukinath Roadways Private Limited ....
Respondent Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
17.11.2022 03.
1. These two appeals have been directed against the common order Order No.
dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack bench, Cuttack in CO Nos.20 and 21/CTK/2019
(arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.141 and 142/CTK/2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2009-10 and 2010-11).
2. The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in the present appeals concern the additions made in assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act despite there being no incriminating material found during the course of search. Similar questions sought to be raised by the Revenue has been negatived by this Court by its order dated 5th July, 2022 in in ITA No.94 of 2018 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Vishakhapatnam v. M/s. Midas Capital Pvt. Ltd.). In coming to the above conclusion, this Court relied on the earlier two decisions of this Court in Smt. Jami Nirmala v. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar [2021] 437 ITR 573 (Orissa) and Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India [2021] 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) adopting the line of reasoning of the High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi).
3. Consequently, the Court declines to frame the questions as urged by the Revenue in the present appeals. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M. S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikanta