2011 (5) TMI 1088 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legitimacy of additions under section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure.
3. Finality of earlier adjudicated matters and their binding nature in subsequent proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessments under Section 153A:
The assessee challenged the validity of assessments completed under section 153A read with section 143(3) on two grounds: (a) no new evidence was found during the search, and (b) the additions made were already adjudicated upon by the CIT(A) and had become final as no appeal was filed by the revenue. The CIT(A) rejected these contentions, stating that section 153A proceedings could be initiated even without new evidence found during the search and that the non obstante clause in section 153A overrides section 147.

2. Legitimacy of Additions under Section 69C:
For the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 6,63,093/- and Rs. 12,51,937/- respectively as unexplained expenditure under section 69C based on the statement and affidavit of Shri Mukesh Choksi. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the parties mentioned in Choksi's statement were not the ones with whom the assessee had dealings. The CIT(A) found Choksi's evidence unreliable due to his vacillating statements and double-speaking, relying on the Calcutta High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises.

3. Finality of Earlier Adjudicated Matters:
The Tribunal emphasized the principle that finality of assessments or judicial orders is sacrosanct. It held that the Assessing Officer cannot disturb matters that have reached finality in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal cited the Privy Council and Supreme Court judgments, which established that assessments once made are final unless set aside under the authority of law. The Tribunal concluded that section 153A does not permit reopening of matters that have already been decided and have attained finality.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the cross objections filed by the assessee, holding that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to include the same additions that were deleted by the CIT(A) in earlier proceedings. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s orders on merits, finding that the additions were not justified based on the unreliable evidence of Shri Mukesh Choksi. Consequently, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed.