2017 (9) TMI 1925 - AT - Income Tax

Search proceedings - cash available with the assessee and sale proceeds from jewellery - second round of litigation before this Tribunal - Second round of litigation before this Tribunal - in the first round of litigation, this Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the search documents and find out the cash available with the assessee and sale proceeds from jewellery and thereafter find out whether the sale proceeds have been used for acquisition of any other asset. If it is not found, then corresponding credit should be given towards unaccounted money lending business - On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that no appeal was filed either by the Revenue or by the assessee against this order of the Tribunal. In other words, the order of this Tribunal dated 17.10.2008 has attained finality. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to examine the search documents and find out whether cash was available with the assessee and sale proceeds of jewellery were used for acquisition of any other asset. If it is not utilised, then corresponding credit should be given to the unaccounted money lending business as directed by this Tribunal. In this case, the Assessing Officer specifically found that there was no evidence for acquisition of other assets by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal by Revenue, Proper utilization of sale proceeds, Deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer, Finality of Tribunal's order

Delay in filing appeal by Revenue:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a delay of 41 days. The Tribunal heard both sides and found sufficient cause for the delay, thus condoning it and admitting the appeal.

Proper utilization of sale proceeds:
In the previous round of litigation, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine if sale proceeds from jewellery were used for acquiring other assets. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on pro notes and cheques found during the search, but failed to credit cash against it. The Tribunal's order emphasized giving credit towards unaccounted money lending business if sale proceeds were not used for other assets. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, as there was no evidence of acquisition of other assets by the assessee.

Deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(Appeals) should not have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, as per the Tribunal's direction in the first round of litigation. However, the counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not follow the Tribunal's directive properly. Since no appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order from the previous litigation, it had attained finality, and the Assessing Officer's failure to find evidence of asset acquisition led to the deletion of the addition by the CIT(Appeals).

Finality of Tribunal's order:
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition by the CIT(Appeals) since the Assessing Officer did not find evidence of asset acquisition by the assessee, as directed by the Tribunal in the previous round of litigation. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, stating there was no reason to interfere, and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of delay in filing the appeal, proper utilization of sale proceeds, the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, and the finality of the Tribunal's order, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.