2015 (3) TMI 640 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of notice issued u/s. 158BD - non recording of satisfaction with respect to the undisclosed income belonging to the Assessee - Held that - While framing the assessment order u/s. 158BC vide order dated 30th January, 2001 in the case of Janak Kansara, A.O at para 10 on page 14 has noted that the transactions pertains to J.B. Construction that is the Assessee, cash of ₹ 3,93,689 was made to Ambica Timber Mart and Ambica Timber Depot and ₹ 17,647/- was made Decent Sales Corporation. Before us, ld. A.R. has relied on the reply received under RTI Act about the non availability of satisfaction note to which we find that subsequently DCIT Circle-9 vide letter dated 10.05.2012 address to CIT has stated that the query of the Assessee was misunderstood by him to be with respect to the satisfaction note prepared by the investigation wing. In the letter it is further submitted that the reasons recorded by the A.O are on records and can be given to the Assessee at any time. Considering the aforesaid facts and in the light of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT), we are of the view that in the present case the A.O had recorded the satisfaction as required under the Act and therefore the assessment framed was valid and thus this ground is dismissed. - Decided against assessee. Additions in respect of payments made to M/s. Raj Granites and Decent Sales Corporation - Held that - CIT(A) while deciding the issue has concluded that the cash payments were made by the Assessee and were not recorded in the books of account and further as the source of payment was unexplained, the cash payments represents unexplained expenditure. Before us, no material has been placed on record by ld. A.R. to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A).- Decided against assessee. Addition on account of settlements of unaccounted cash loan - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the amount has been already been taxed in the hands of Gopalbhai Patel in the block assessment and thus the source of money stands proved. Before us, no material has been brought on record by Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of on money received on flat booking - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the addition of the same amounts have been made in the block assessment of Janak Kansara and has also been accepted by him and the additions have been confirmed in appeal and therefore if the addition is made in the case of Assessee, it would amount to double addition. Before us, no material has been brought on record by Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of deemed income in respect of flats allotted - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the properties were not owned by the family member of Kansara Group and further the construction expense pertains to the Society and not of the Assessee. He accordingly deleted the addition. Before us, no material has been brought on record by Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that Varshaben Kansara is a partners of the Assessee firm, is regularly assessed to tax and thus are identity is fully established. He has further noted that addition was made without providing any opportunity to the Assessee. Before us, no material has been brought on record by Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,51,519/- being cash received by M/s. Raj Granites.
3. Addition of Rs. 94,979/- being cash received by M/s. Ambica Timber Mart, M/s. Ambica Timber Depot, and M/s. Decent Sales.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- on account of settlement of unaccounted cash loan.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 38,12,100/- on account of 'on money' receipts.
6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 36,95,000/- on account of unaccounted deemed income.
7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued under Section 158BD:
The Assessee challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that the notice issued under Section 158BD was vague and lacked the requisite satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched party. The Assessee argued that no satisfaction was recorded as required under the Act. The Revenue countered that the satisfaction was recorded during the assessment of Janak Kansara, and the same AO handled both cases. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction was indeed recorded as required and dismissed this ground.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,51,519/-:
The Assessee contended that the addition was erroneous as the cash was passed on to M/s. Raj Granites, who were already taxed for this amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the cash payment was made by the Assessee and not recorded in the books, making it an unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the Assessee did not provide contrary evidence.

3. Addition of Rs. 94,979/-:
Similar to the previous issue, the Assessee argued that the amount was passed on to M/s. Ambica Timber Mart, M/s. Ambica Timber Depot, and M/s. Decent Sales, who were already taxed. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and restrict the addition to unrecorded cash payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the Assessee's arguments unsubstantiated.

4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 27,50,000/-:
The AO added this amount based on documents indicating that flats were allotted to settle a loan. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the amount was already taxed in the hands of Shri Gopal Patel, proving the source of money. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue did not provide contrary evidence.

5. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 38,12,100/-:
The AO added this amount based on seized documents showing 'on money' receipts. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that similar additions were made in the case of Janak Kansara and accepted by him, thus avoiding double addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue did not provide contrary evidence.

6. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 36,95,000/-:
The AO added this amount based on seized documents indicating undeclared income from flat allotments. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the properties were not owned by the family members of Kansara Group and the construction expenses pertained to the society, not the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue did not provide contrary evidence.

7. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,40,000/-:
The AO added this amount as unexplained cash credit in the name of Varshaben Kansara. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that Varshaben Kansara was a partner of the Assessee firm and regularly assessed to tax, thus her identity was established. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue did not provide contrary evidence.

Conclusion:
Both the Assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all counts, finding no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions drawn by the lower authorities. The order was pronounced in open court on 04-03-2015.

← Previous Next →