9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1026 - AT - Income TaxSearch u/s 132 of the Act Protective Assessment made - Jurisdiction of AO u/s 153 r.w section 154 of the Act Held that - Though the ground was raised before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not adjudicated it as there is no finding of CIT(A) on the same - the ground needs to be adjudicated by CIT(A) thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Consolidated order of CIT(A)-III for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2006-07; Unexplained cash deposits in bank account; Jurisdiction of A.O. under section 153C r.w.s. 154 of the Act; Additions under section 69 of IT Act; Interest levied under sections 234B and 234C of IT Act. Unexplained Cash Deposits in Bank Account: The case involved four appeals by the Assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-III for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2006-07. A search action under section 132 of the Act revealed that the Assessee had made cash deposits in a bank account without explaining the source of the funds. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) considered the cash deposits as unexplained investments under section 69 of the IT Act and computed the total income based on this. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, stating that the Assessee had entered into large-scale transactions involving hawala profits through a stockbroking firm, and the assessment was made on a protective basis. The Assessee challenged this order, arguing that no satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. before initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Jurisdiction of A.O. under Section 153C r.w.s. 154 of the Act: The Assessee raised a ground regarding the jurisdiction of the A.O. in passing the order under section 153C r.w.s. 154 of the IT Act, but this ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The ITAT remitted this ground back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after recording a clear finding and passing a speaking order. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue, necessitating a review of the jurisdictional aspect of the A.O.'s order. Additions under Section 69 of IT Act: The Assessee contended that the A.O. and CIT(A) erred in making and confirming additions under section 69 of the IT Act related to the unexplained cash deposits. The Assessee sought the deletion of these additions, arguing that the assessments were not valid. The ITAT allowed the appeals of the Assessee for statistical purposes, indicating a favorable outcome for the Assessee on this issue. Interest Levied under Sections 234B and 234C of IT Act: The Assessee also challenged the interest levied under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessee argued that this interest was unjustified both in law and fact. The ITAT allowed all the appeals of the Assessee for statistical purposes, indicating a favorable decision on this issue as well. In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment addressed multiple issues related to unexplained cash deposits, the jurisdiction of the A.O. under section 153C, additions under section 69 of the IT Act, and interest levied under sections 234B and 234C. The ITAT remitted the jurisdictional issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, while ruling in favor of the Assessee on the additions and interest levied, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes in all cases.
|
