9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1296 - AT - Income TaxValidity of notice issued u/s.158BD - block assessment - requisite conditions for such notice were not satisfied - addition u/s 68 and 69C - Held that - There is no proof with the Department that money was given by the assessee to M/s. Maheshwari Financiers for obtaining the cheques or that after the loans were obtained cash was withdrawn and given to M/s. Maheswari Financiers. Merely on the basis of statement of the Accountant and without any corroborative evidence the addition made by the AO in a block assessment passed u/s.158BD r.w.s. 158BC which has been upheld by the CIT(A), in our opinion, is not correct and proper. Also the block assessment order passed in the case of the searched person has been set aside by the CIT u/s.263 on 23-03-2006. Subsequent to the order passed u/s.263 the AO completed the assessment of the searched persons on 29-12-2006 by making addition u/s.69A amounting to ₹ 1,63,77,713/- as money lent to third parties, a statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the bar and not controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Therefore, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the order passed u/s.263 is in force in case of the searched person, there was no question of making addition in the hands of the assessee Since in the instant case the block assessment of the searched persons were completed on 24-12-2003 and since the notice u/s.158BD was issued on 10-02-2006, i.e. after a gap of 26 months, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain 2015 (1) TMI 705 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) the notices issued u/s.158BD are not in conformity with the requirements of section 158BD which were unduly delayed. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.158BD has to be held as invalid and void. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 158BD. 2. Jurisdiction and due process under Section 158BD. 3. Legality of additions under Sections 68 and 69C. 4. Requirement of incriminating materials for Section 158BD proceedings. 5. Timeliness and procedural compliance for issuing notice under Section 158BD. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice under Section 158BD: The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BD on the grounds that the requisite conditions for such notice were not satisfied. The notice was argued to be general in nature, mentioning Pune-based concerns without specific names and alleging that loans were obtained by these parties by cheque for which they had paid cash to M/s. Maheshwari Financiers. The notice was also claimed to be issued beyond a reasonable time from the date of completion of the assessment of the searched person. The Tribunal found that the notice issued to the assessee under Section 158BD was invalid. The satisfaction note was undated and issued much later after the original assessment, with a gap of about four years. The Tribunal held that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found from the premises of the searched person, and the satisfaction note was mainly based on the basis of entries made in the regular books of account and the statement of the accountant. 2. Jurisdiction and Due Process under Section 158BD: The assessee argued that the AO assumed jurisdiction under Section 158BD without following due process of law, beyond a reasonable time, and violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction under Section 158BD was recorded by the AO of the searched person on 06-04-2004, and the notices were issued to the assessee on 10-02-2006, after a gap of over 23 months from the date of recording of satisfaction. The Tribunal held that the delay in issuing the notice under Section 158BD was unreasonable and not in conformity with the requirements of the section. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain, which held that a delay ranging between 10 months to 1.5 years cannot be considered contemporaneous to assessment proceedings. 3. Legality of Additions under Sections 68 and 69C: The AO treated the loan amount of Rs. 22 lakhs shown by the assessee as loan received from M/s. Maheshwari Financiers as undisclosed income under Section 68 and disallowed the year-wise interest paid on such loan totaling Rs. 7,03,485 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee received the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs by account payee cheques, and these were entered in the books of account of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers prior to the date of search. There was no proof with the Department that money was given by the assessee to M/s. Maheshwari Financiers for obtaining the cheques or that after the loans were obtained, cash was withdrawn and given to M/s. Maheshwari Financiers. The Tribunal held that merely on the basis of the statement of the accountant and without any corroborative evidence, the addition made by the AO was not correct and proper. 4. Requirement of Incriminating Materials for Section 158BD Proceedings: The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found from the premises of the searched person. The satisfaction note was mainly based on the basis of entries made in the regular books of account and the statement of the accountant. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Late Rajpal Bhatia, which held that proceedings initiated under Section 158BD on the basis of the statement recorded during search are not valid as the statement is neither a document nor an asset. 5. Timeliness and Procedural Compliance for Issuing Notice under Section 158BD: The Tribunal held that the delay of 26 months in issuing the notice under Section 158BD was unreasonable and not in conformity with the requirements of the section. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain, which held that the Revenue has to be vigilant in issuing notice to third parties under Section 158BD immediately after the completion of the assessment of the searched person. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respective assessees, holding that the notice issued under Section 158BD was invalid and the additions made by the AO under Sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of interest on such loan by the AO under Section 69C. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
|
