9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 433 - AT - Income TaxProceedings u/s 158BC - Held that - Additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity or otherwise of search for initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act has no legs to stand and that to decide the justifiability or otherwise of such an action u/s 132 of the Act by the authorities below does not fall within the purview of this Bench. Addition of 15 lakhs on substantive basis - Held that - As no credible documentary evidence was brought on record to thwart the reasonableness of the CIT (A) s finding. We are therefore of the considered view that there was no infirmity in her conclusion which requires our intervention. The issue is therefore decided against the assessee. Addition on basis of seized material - Held that - As rightly highlighted by the CIT (A) the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast on him u/s 132(4A) of the Act even at this stage. In the absence of any plausible documentary evidence to rebut the stand of the authorities below we are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to properly/satisfactorily explain the generation of such funds and accordingly sustained the additions made on this count. Addition on on money for sale of office space - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the amount in question has been received through cheques and according to the CIT (A) the receipt of which by way of cheques has also been accounted for in the books of the society. Such being the scenario the receipt of such payments through cheques cannot be categorized as on money for sale of office space as branded by the AO. In view of the above facts we are in agreement with the finding of the CIT (A) on this point. In essence the deletion of addition of 11, 85, 630/- is sustained.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 on substantive basis. 3. Addition of Rs. 4,35,000, Rs. 81,850, and Rs. 8,00,000 as unaccounted money. 4. Charging of interest under section 158BFA(1) of the Act. 5. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 158BFA(2) of the Act. 6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 15,00,000 in the case of Shri Rajendra M Vyas. 7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,85,630 in the case of Shri Rajendra M Vyas. 8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 12,38,815 on account of 'on money' receipts. 9. Addition of Rs. 64,45,000 as excessive investment. 10. Addition of Rs. 30,30,000 and Rs. 9,65,000 as alleged investments in land. 11. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 as undisclosed expenditure. 12. Addition of Rs. 24,07,923 as unaccounted credits. 13. Addition of Rs. 16,73,342 as income not offered for taxation. Detailed Analysis: I. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the validity of the search and the initiation of proceedings under section 158BC, arguing that no search warrant was issued against him. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the proceedings, noting that a warrant was executed on a locker in the names of Sitaben M Vyas and Manubhai P Vyas, and the notice issued under section 158BC was valid despite a clerical error mentioning section 158BD. The Tribunal cited the jurisdictional High Court ruling that the legality of a search can only be challenged via a writ petition, not in an appeal before the Tribunal. II. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 on Substantive Basis: The AO added Rs. 15,00,000 as unaccounted investment in properties at Tragad. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding that the seized document evidenced cash transactions not explained by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of credible documentary evidence from the assessee to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings. III. Addition of Rs. 4,35,000, Rs. 81,850, and Rs. 8,00,000 as Unaccounted Money: The AO made these additions based on seized materials indicating unaccounted receipts and expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, finding the assessee's explanations unconvincing. The Tribunal concurred, noting the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence to support his claims. IV. Charging of Interest Under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act: The Tribunal found this ground not maintainable as the charging of interest under section 158BFA(1) is mandatory and consequential in nature. V. Initiation of Penal Proceedings Under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act: The Tribunal found this ground not maintainable as the initiation of penal proceedings under section 158BFA(2) was in its infancy when the block assessment proceeding was concluded. VI. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 in the Case of Shri Rajendra M Vyas: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 made on account of unaccounted investment in a property at Tragad in the hands of Shri Rajendra M Vyas, as the same addition was upheld on a substantive basis in the hands of his father, Shri Manubhai P Vyas. The Tribunal agreed, noting that sustaining the addition in both cases would lead to double taxation. VII. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 11,85,630 in the Case of Shri Rajendra M Vyas: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 11,85,630 made on account of unaccounted receipts from AMCO Bank, finding that the payments were received by cheque and accounted for in the books of the society. The Tribunal upheld this finding. VIII. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 12,38,815 on Account of 'On Money' Receipts: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 12,38,815 on account of 'on money' receipts for 12 flats in Tower 'B' of 'Mansi Project,' directing the AO to verify from the seized documents the date of handing over possession of the flats. The Tribunal found no violation of rule 46A of the I.T. Rules by the CIT(A) and upheld the deletion. IX. Addition of Rs. 64,45,000 as Excessive Investment: The CIT(A) noted that no specific addition was made for the sum held to be undisclosed receipts earned as a developer of Manasi Scheme. The Tribunal found the assessee's apprehension unfounded and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding. X. Addition of Rs. 30,30,000 and Rs. 9,65,000 as Alleged Investments in Land: The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 30,30,000, finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory and the hak patrak not indicative of the land in question. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of documentary proof from the assessee. The CIT(A) also upheld the addition of Rs. 9,65,000, finding the assessee's explanation for the entries in the seized documents unconvincing. The Tribunal concurred. XI. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 as Undisclosed Expenditure: The AO added Rs. 3,00,000 as undisclosed expenditure based on a seized document showing payment to Shri I.M. Bengali. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the assessee's explanation unconvincing. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of documentary evidence to support the assessee's claim. XII. Addition of Rs. 24,07,923 as Unaccounted Credits: The AO added Rs. 24,07,923 as unaccounted credits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory and the nature of the credits unexplained. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of contemporary evidence to reconcile the entries. XIII. Addition of Rs. 16,73,342 as Income Not Offered for Taxation: The AO added Rs. 16,73,342 as income not offered for taxation, applying the provisions of section 44AD. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, directing the AO to identify receipts beyond the block period and calculate income on the remainder. The Tribunal found no credible evidence from the assessee to refute the AO's findings and upheld the addition. Conclusion: All appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the findings of the CIT(A) and the AO on all issues. The Tribunal found no infirmities in the authorities' conclusions and sustained their decisions.
|
