2013 (10) TMI 1419 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - Held that - the assessment of the assessee has been completed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act hence, the assessee should not have any grievance. Addition towards unaccounted sales - Held that - We find that except the estimate nothing is there on record to suggest that the assessee has invested ₹ 4,50,000/- as seed capital. At the same time unaccounted investment cannot be ruled out also. We, therefore, sustain the addition to ₹ 1,00,000/- and accordingly the assessee gets the partial relief. Addition on the basis of the DVO report - Held that - We find that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT 2009 (10) TMI 569 - Supreme Court of India wherein held Matter could not refer to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of account being rejected. Cash seized during the course of search - whether cash seized should have been adjusted against the advance tax payable in view of Sec. 132B of the Act and no interest should have been levied u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act - Held that - The Learned Counsel fairly admitted that no specific request was made by the assessee for adjusting the seized cash. In our opinion, if the assessee has not requested the Department for adjustment of the seized cash, in such situation the assessee cannot escape from the levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. Addition towards the low house hold expenditure - Held that - Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s. 154 on 03-02-2010 and reduced the addition as there was a mistake in the tabulation. The Ld. CIT(A) gave the relief by 50% reducing the addition. It is true that the addition on account of short house hold expenditure is not based on any concrete material but the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) are quite elaborate to support his order and we accordingly sustain the addition.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- as unaccounted sales.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,28,000/- based on DVO valuation.
3. Completion of assessment under Section 153A(b) instead of Section 143(3).
4. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
5. Addition of Rs. 15,000/-.
6. Addition of Rs. 92,000/- based on DVO valuation.
7. Estimation of household expenses.
8. Addition of Rs. 24,000/- for unaccounted expenditure to obtain a gift.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- as Unaccounted Sales:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- as unaccounted sales, arguing that only profit percentage should be estimated. The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to unaccounted sales and offered Rs. 4,75,000/- as income. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the peak credit of Rs. 3,62,263/- and added Rs. 4,50,000/- as unexplained seed capital. The Tribunal reduced this addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to lack of concrete evidence, granting partial relief to the assessee.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,28,000/- Based on DVO Valuation:
The AO made an addition based on the difference between the DVO's valuation and the recorded investment in immovable property. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in *Sargam Cinema vs. CIT* and the Gujarat High Court decision in *Goodluck Automobiles (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, which held that DVO's estimated valuation cannot be treated as actual undisclosed income. The addition of Rs. 2,28,000/- was deleted.

3. Completion of Assessment under Section 153A(b) Instead of Section 143(3):
The assessee argued that the assessment should have been completed under Section 153A(b) due to the search action. The Tribunal noted that no notice under Section 153A was issued, and assessments were completed within the time limit prescribed under Section 153B(1)(b). Following its earlier decision in the Bindra Group case, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the assessments were valid under Section 143(3).

4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee contended that seized cash should be adjusted against advance tax to avoid interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal noted that no specific request for adjustment was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the levy of interest, dismissing the ground.

5. Addition of Rs. 15,000/-:
In one of the appeals, the assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as "not pressed."

6. Addition of Rs. 92,000/- Based on DVO Valuation:
Similar to the issue of Rs. 2,28,000/-, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 92,000/- based on DVO's estimated valuation, following the principles laid down in *Sargam Cinema vs. CIT* and *Goodluck Automobiles (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*.

7. Estimation of Household Expenses:
The AO estimated household expenses and made additions based on the number of family members and their withdrawals. The Tribunal upheld these additions, noting that the reasons given by the CIT(A) were elaborate and supported the order.

8. Addition of Rs. 24,000/- for Unaccounted Expenditure to Obtain a Gift:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as "not pressed."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided partial relief by reducing or deleting certain additions while upholding others. The decisions were primarily based on principles from higher judicial authorities and compliance with procedural requirements. The appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on the merits of each ground.