9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 929 - AT - Income TaxInvoking the provisions of section 153C - whether the documents seized in the course of search were belonging to the assessee or not? - Held that - The document in question was the agreement dated 21.10.2002, copy of which is available on pages 110-117 of the paper book. This agreement is between Shri Amratbhai Talshibhai Desai being the party of one part and Shri Vikas Arvindbhai Shah and Abhabhai Arjanbhai Jadeja i.e. the present assessee being the other part. This agreement was in relation to sale of land owned by party of one part to the parties of other part for a consideration of ₹ 1,65,73,410/-. The agreement is duly signed by the assessee and other two persons and it was duly notarized also. Considering these facts, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that this document is not belonging to the assessee and, therefore, this objection of the assessee is not valid. Not only the name of the assessee is appearing in the seized papers but it is an agreement between the assessee along with one other person to the sale of land and this agreement is duly signed by the assessee also and, therefore, the document found in the course of search is definitely belonging to the assessee - Decided against assessee. Unaccounted receipt in the hands of the assessee - Held that - A clear finding is given by Ld. CIT(A) that even in remand proceedings, no further corroborative evidence have been gathered by the A.O. to justify the addition made by him. We have already noted that even as per the statement of Shri V.A. Shah, the amount received by the assessee was on account of refund of cancellation of deal and not on account of dalali/brokerage. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. In assessment year 2005-06 no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 91.50 lacs on account of alleged on money payment by the assessee or in respect of addition of ₹ 44.80 lacs ultimately not made by the A.O. in respect of receipt of dalali/brokerage by the assessee from Shri Vikas A Shah. Hence, in this year also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of invoking provisions of section 153C. 2. Deletion of additions by CIT(A) for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of invoking provisions of section 153C: The assessee contested the invocation of section 153C, arguing that the document in question, an agreement dated 21.10.2002, did not belong to him. The document was seized during a search on 09.02.2005. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Vijaybhai N. Chandrani Vs ACIT, which stated that documents not belonging to the assessee could not justify invoking section 153C. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement was signed by the assessee and notarized, indicating that it did belong to him. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's objection, stating that the document was indeed belonging to the assessee and the provisions of section 153C were rightly invoked. 2. Deletion of additions by CIT(A) for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06: Assessment Year 2003-04: The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs by CIT(A), which was considered unaccounted receipt by the AO based on seized documents and statements made by Shri Vikas A. Shah. The CIT(A) concluded that the amount was a refund for a cancelled deal and not income chargeable to tax. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the AO's assumption of the amount being dalali/brokerage was baseless and unsupported by any corroborative evidence. Assessment Year 2004-05: Similar to the previous year, the revenue's appeal against the deletion of Rs. 42.40 lakhs was based on the same grounds. The CIT(A) found no evidence supporting the AO's claim that the amount was unaccounted receipt. The Tribunal agreed with CIT(A), emphasizing that the findings were consistent with the previous year's decision and lacked corroborative evidence. Assessment Year 2005-06: For this year, the revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 91.50 lakhs, alleged as on-money payment. The AO also considered an addition of Rs. 44.80 lakhs as dalali/brokerage but did not make a separate addition. The CIT(A) deleted the Rs. 91.50 lakhs addition, citing lack of corroborative evidence and improbability of the transaction. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the valuation of the property was not challenged by the Stamp Duty Authority and that the AO failed to gather further evidence during remand proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals for all three assessment years, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions. The cross objections by the assessee regarding the invocation of section 153C were also dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the improbability of the transactions as key reasons for upholding CIT(A)'s decisions.
|
