9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 671 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153C (ITA No. 503/Lkw/2013.) -Satisfaction recorded by Ao is not proper - Additions by AO based on petition before settlement commission - Issue of telescoping - Held that - It is seen that in the present case, satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. of the searched person and the case is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of classic Enterprises 2013 (4) TMI 520 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Since this judgment is of Hon ble Allahabad High Court, it is binding on us and therefore, we are not discussing various judgments cited by learned AR as noted above. Hence, by respectfully following the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of classic Enterprises, we decide this issue against the assessee. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per sub section (3) to section 245HA, the A.O. can use all material and other information produced by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. This is not in dispute that the assessee provided this information before Settlement Commission about his additional income. Since, the assessee did not provide the detail about the year in which, this income was earned by the assessee, the A.O. made substantive addition in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year and made protective addition in 1999 - 2000 to 2004 - 05 on protective basis. It is noted by learned CIT (A) in Para 5.2 and 5.2.1 of his order that the learned AR of the assessee himself made an offer before him that if the addition is confirmed, the same be confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis. Learned CIT (A) accepted the same and accordingly confirmed the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year. We do not find any infirmity in the same. In view of peculiar facts of the present case where the addition is made and confirmed on the basis of offer before Settlement Commission, which is not specific, it has to be accepted that part of such income might have been earned in these earlier years and hence, in view of these peculiar facts, we grant telescoping and direct the A.O. that the additions confirmed by learned CIT (A) in A. Y. 1999 - 2000 to 2003 - 04 as noted above should be considered as part of surrender before Settlement Commission and therefore, the net addition in this year is confirmed to the extent of ₹ 344000 only (Rs. 438500 - 94500). In rest all appeals, matter was identical to the above mentioned appeal. - Decided partly in favour of assessees.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Section 153C. 2. Validity of addition based on the offer made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. 3. Allowance of telescoping of additions confirmed in earlier years. 4. Additional issue regarding estimation of receipts and confirming of additions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Satisfaction Recorded by the A.O. under Section 153C: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. under Section 153C. The assessee contended that the satisfaction was not proper and correct. The learned AR of the assessee cited several judicial pronouncements, including *Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT* and *CIT vs. Gopi Apartment*. The Revenue supported the orders passed by the authorities below. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. was proper and in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in *CIT vs. Classic Enterprises*, which held that at the initial stage, the satisfaction need not be firm or conclusive. Hence, the Tribunal decided this issue against the assessee. 2. Validity of Addition Based on the Offer Made by the Assessee Before the Settlement Commission: The second issue was the addition of Rs. 438,500 made by the A.O. based on the offer made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. The assessee argued that the offer was made to avoid botheration and buy peace, and there was no additional income. The Tribunal noted that as per Section 245HA(3), the A.O. can use all material produced before the Settlement Commission. Since the assessee did not specify the year in which the income was earned, the A.O. made substantive addition in A.Y. 2005-06 and protective additions for earlier years. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach and upheld the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005-06. 3. Allowance of Telescoping of Additions Confirmed in Earlier Years: A connected issue was whether the amount of addition in A.Y. 2005-06 should be reduced by the amount of other additions confirmed in earlier years by allowing telescoping. The Tribunal noted that the offer before the Settlement Commission was without year-wise break-up. Given the peculiar facts, the Tribunal allowed telescoping, reducing the net addition in A.Y. 2005-06 by the amounts confirmed in earlier years. 4. Additional Issue Regarding Estimation of Receipts and Confirming of Additions: In some cases, there was an additional issue regarding the confirming of additions by estimating receipts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. Summary of Individual Appeals: - Sri Ram Singhare Yadav (A.Y. 2005-06): Net addition confirmed at Rs. 344,000 after telescoping. - Sri Rajjan Lal Vinod Gupta (HUF) (A.Y. 2005-06): Net addition confirmed at Rs. 407,500 after telescoping; additional issue of Rs. 8,000 confirmed. - Sri Rajjan Lal Neeraj Gupta (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02 and 2005-06): Appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 dismissed; net addition for A.Y. 2005-06 confirmed at Rs. 212,000 after telescoping; additional issue of Rs. 5,000 confirmed. - Maya Devi Vinod Neeraj Gupta (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02 and 2005-06): Appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 dismissed; net addition for A.Y. 2005-06 confirmed at Rs. 317,500 after telescoping; additional issue of Rs. 7,500 confirmed. - Rajjan Lal Vinod Neeraj Gupta (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02 and 2005-06): Appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 dismissed; net addition for A.Y. 2005-06 confirmed at Rs. 214,250 after telescoping; additional issue of Rs. 12,500 confirmed. - Vinod Kumar Neeraj Gupta (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02 and 2005-06): Appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 dismissed; net addition for A.Y. 2005-06 confirmed at Rs. 213,000 after telescoping; additional issue of Rs. 10,000 confirmed. Conclusion: In the combined result, all four appeals for A.Y. 2001-02 were dismissed, and the remaining six appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 were partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court.
|
