Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 536 - AT - Income TaxSurvey Unaccounted money - Liability where the assessee was not under search u/s 132 - who was under search u/s 153A - Held that - it is undisputed fact that though warrant of authorization is issued in the name of the assessee being Managing Trustee of the Trust, but it is admitted fact that no search operation was conducted in the premises of the assessee. Even in the warrant of authorization, the address of the place to be searched is not the address of the assessee individual. Admittedly, no Panchnama is also drawn in pursuance with the warrant of authorization in the case of the assessee. No documents were seized or impounded as such during the course of search from the assessee. The warrant of authorization dated 29.10.2004 in the name of the Trust and the assessee stands unexecuted in the case of assessee individual. Since in this case only survey operation under section 133A is conducted in the premises of the assessee s Trust, it would not satisfy the requirements of section 153A of the Act. - AO was not justified in initiating proceedings or assuming valid jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act against the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order issued pursuant to a notice under Section 153A. 2. Whether the search warrant was validly issued and served. 3. Whether the amount found in the bank accounts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity or to the Trust. 4. Whether the proceedings under Section 153A were valid and lawful. 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,93,99,865/- as undisclosed income was justified. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order Issued Pursuant to a Notice under Section 153A: The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order on the grounds that it was based on a notice under Section 153A, which was issued erroneously on the assumption that the assessee had been subjected to a search under Section 132. The learned CIT (A) dismissed this ground by stating that the search under Section 132 was conducted in the name of the appellant in the Bank premises, and hence, the notice under Section 153A was validly issued. 2. Whether the Search Warrant was Validly Issued and Served: The search warrant was issued in the name of "K. M. Shah Charitable Trust, Mansukhbhai K. Shah," and was served on the banks where the Trust's accounts were held. The assessee argued that the warrant was not served on him or the Trust, making the notice under Section 153A void ab initio. The learned CIT (A) upheld the validity of the notice and the subsequent assessment order. 3. Whether the Amount Found in the Bank Accounts Belonged to the Assessee in His Individual Capacity or to the Trust: The assessee initially admitted that the money in the Trust's bank accounts was his personal money but later retracted this statement, claiming the money belonged to the Trust. The learned CIT (A) noted that the amount seized was adjusted towards the Trust's advance tax liability and not the individual liability of the assessee, indicating that the money belonged to the Trust. 4. Whether the Proceedings under Section 153A were Valid and Lawful: The Tribunal held that for Section 153A to apply, the initiation of the search and the conduct of the search are both necessary. The Tribunal found that the search warrant was issued in the name of the Trust and the assessee as the Managing Trustee, but no search was conducted in the individual capacity of the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 153A against the assessee in his individual capacity were invalid and bad in law. 5. Whether the Addition of Rs. 1,93,99,865/- as Undisclosed Income was Justified: The Tribunal found that there was no incriminating evidence to prove that the money in the Trust's bank accounts belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. The amount was already considered in the Trust's assessment, and the Trust was granted a refund. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,93,99,865/- as undisclosed income in the individual assessment of the assessee was not justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that the proceedings under Section 153A were invalid and bad in law. The Tribunal also dismissed the departmental appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,93,99,865/- as undisclosed income.
|