2013 (11) TMI 722 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s 68 of the Income tax act - Search was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20.01.2006 when certain incriminating documents were seized. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the I. T. Act, 1961 were issued requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income for the current year as well as last six years which was duly filed and after due notice to the assessee and considering the reply, assessments were framed and certain additions were made - Additions of the amount of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary Held that - It is just and appropriate to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the additions made on the basis of second remand report in which the A.O. has agreed with the material submitted by the assessee Addition deleted Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeals of the department and cross objections of the assessee against separate orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) for various assessment years.
- Deletion of additions made under section 68 and part disallowance by the A.O.
- Challenge regarding admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act.
- Disallowance of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary.
- Request for deletion of additions made without granting appropriate opportunity.
- Consideration of incriminating documents seized during a search.
- Setting aside orders and restoring issues back to the file of the A.O. for reconsideration.
- Confirmation of disallowance of remuneration and charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves 15 matters comprising appeals of the department and cross objections of the assessee against orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) for various assessment years. Common issues were heard together for convenience and disposal in a single order.

2. The appeals of the department mainly relate to deletion of additions under section 68 and part disallowance by the A.O., along with challenges regarding admission of additional evidence. Cross objections of the assessee contest disallowance of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary and seek reconsideration of various disallowances.

3. The A.O. made additions based on incriminating documents seized during a search, leading to appeals by the department and cross objections by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) provided relief based on a second remand report, prompting the department's appeals and the assessee's cross objections.

4. The assessee contested the confirmation of additions related to remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary, citing lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, while cross objections of the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

5. The judgment also addressed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08, challenging the disallowance of remuneration paid to Mrs. Mukta Chaudhary and the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the A.O. for reconsideration.

6. Ultimately, the appeals of the department for all years were dismissed, and the cross objections of the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 was also partly allowed for statistical purposes.