9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1141 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessment has been framed u/s.158BA - Addition on unaccounted investments - Held that - It is an admitted fact that action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act was carried out simultaneously in the case of the Pat Sanstha as well as that of the assessee. No evidence whatsoever was found during the course of search in case of the assessee that he has made such fictitious fixed deposits. No investigation whatsoever was carried out by the AO to find out as to who are the real beneficiaries. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the money has come back to the assessee. Although the Ld.CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the same in the hands of the concerned persons, we find the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any specific direction to tax the same in the hands of the assessee Mr. Radhe Shyam B. Agrawal. It is also an admitted fact that the Patsanstha as well as the revenue have challenged the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 31-12- 2012 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. We therefore find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO could not have issued notice u/s.147 of the I.T. Act before the order attained finality. Also find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that once an assessment has been framed u/s.158BA of the Act in relation to undisclosed income for the Block Period as a result of search, there is no question of the AO issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act for re-opening of such assessment as the said concept is repugnant to the special scheme of assessment of undisclosed income for the Block Period. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- for A.Y. 2000-01 and Rs. 45,30,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02 as unaccounted investments made by the assessee in Chintamani Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule, was justified. 2. Whether the assessment completed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is valid when the income was assessable u/s. 158BC r.w.s. 158BD as per provisions of Chapter XIV-B. Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- and Rs. 45,30,000/- as Unaccounted Investments Facts of the Case: The assessee, engaged in various businesses, was also the founder and Chairman of Chintamani Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule. A search action u/s. 132 was carried out on 17-09-2002, leading to an addition of Rs. 68,80,000/- towards unexplained fixed deposits in the patsanstha's books. The CIT(A) deleted this addition and directed the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings in the hands of the actual depositors. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- for A.Y. 2000-01 and Rs. 45,30,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02 in the assessee's hands. Arguments: - Revenue: The AO argued that the fixed deposits were not genuine, and the assessee, being the chairman, was in control of the patsanstha. The fixed deposits were believed to be benami and belonged to the assessee. - Assessee: The assessee contended that the deposits were genuine and provided detailed information about each deposit. It was argued that no direct evidence linked the deposits to the assessee, and the AO's conclusions were based on surmises and conjectures. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) deleted the additions, stating that the fixed deposits were not proved to be genuine, but there was no evidence that the assessee made these investments. The CIT(A) emphasized that no addition could be made based on suspicion without supporting evidence. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting: - No documentary evidence was found during the search to link the fixed deposits to the assessee. - The AO did not investigate the real beneficiaries of the deposits. - The CIT(A)'s direction to tax the deposits in the hands of the actual investors did not specifically name the assessee. - The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in DHFL Venture Capital Fund, which held that reopening an assessment on a future contingency is not permissible. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the AO's addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- and Rs. 45,30,000/- in the assessee's hands was unjustified due to a lack of evidence. Issue 2: Validity of Assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 Arguments: - Assessee: The assessee argued that the AO should have issued a notice u/s. 158BD for assessing undisclosed income found during the search, not u/s. 147. The assessee cited various judicial precedents supporting the view that specific provisions under Chapter XIV-B override general provisions. - Revenue: The Revenue contended that since the search was conducted on both the patsanstha and the assessee, notice u/s. 158BD was unnecessary. The AO's action of issuing notice u/s. 147 was justified. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) held that the income assessable under Chapter XIV-B cannot be assessed under the general provisions of the Act. The assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was deemed invalid. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in Cargo Clearing Agency (Gujarat), which held that once an assessment is framed u/s. 158BA for undisclosed income, issuing a notice u/s. 148 for reopening such assessment is not permissible. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessment completed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was invalid when the income was assessable under Chapter XIV-B. Final Judgment Both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The additions of Rs. 23,50,000/- for A.Y. 2000-01 and Rs. 45,30,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02 were deleted, and the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was held invalid.
|
