9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1907 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Addition of unexplained income - HELD THAT - Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT in which held as since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. Addition was made as no books of account related to Aramax were found during the course of search. Shri Mohanlal Kotwani in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 22.12.2005 admitted ₹ 5,00,000/- undisclosed income in the case of Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani. Since the same was not offered to tax in return of income filed, therefore, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained income from M/s. Aramax Courier. The assessee could not point out whether the cross examination was sought. Since the addition is based upon incriminating material discovered during the course of search. The addition of ₹ 5 lakhs is sustained. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under Section 153A/144. 2. Adequate opportunity provided to the appellant. 3. Additions based on non-incriminating material. 4. Specific additions for various assessment years. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A/144: The appellant contested the validity of the assessments made under Section 153A/144, arguing that the notices under Section 143(2) were served after the prescribed time limit. This issue was raised across multiple assessment years (2000-01 to 2006-07). The tribunal found that the assessments were made without adequate opportunity being provided to the appellant, leading to the quashing of the assessments for the relevant years. 2. Adequate Opportunity Provided to the Appellant: The appellant argued that the assessments were made without providing adequate opportunity to present their case. This claim was upheld by the tribunal, which noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded with the assessments without proper responses from the appellant due to the delayed issuance of notices. The tribunal found that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity, leading to the cancellation of the assessment orders for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. 3. Additions Based on Non-Incriminating Material: The appellant challenged the additions made by the AO, claiming they were not based on any incriminating material discovered during the search. The tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative admitted in a letter dated 26.06.2018 that the additions were not based on any incriminating material. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del), the tribunal held that no additions could be made to the income already assessed if no incriminating material was unearthed during the search. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the additions for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. 4. Specific Additions for Various Assessment Years: - Assessment Year 2000-01: The tribunal deleted the addition of ?60,000/- as it was not based on any incriminating material. - Assessment Year 2001-02: The tribunal deleted the additions of ?1,92,000/- and ?1,65,000/- for the same reasons. - Assessment Year 2002-03: The tribunal deleted the additions of ?2,16,000/-, ?30,000/-, and ?1,05,000/-. - Assessment Year 2003-04: The tribunal deleted the additions of ?2,64,000/- and ?50,000/-. - Assessment Year 2004-05: The tribunal deleted the additions of ?3,12,000/-, ?60,000/-, and ?90,000/-. - Assessment Year 2006-07: The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the addition of ?5,00,000/- based on incriminating material discovered during the search. The addition was made because no books of account related to Aramax were found during the search, and ?5,00,000/- was admitted as undisclosed income by Shri Mohanlal Kotwani in the statement recorded under Section 132(4). Conclusion: The appeals for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 were allowed, and the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 was partly allowed. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of incriminating material for making additions during assessments under Section 153A and the importance of providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2018.
|
