9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1741 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material was found or not? - HELD THAT - We find from the copy of the Panchnama that lot of loose papers marked as per Bundle No.1 were found from the premises of the assessee. Apart from the above a pendrive was also found. Therefore, it cannot be said that no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. Assessee also could not justify that no incriminating documents were found. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Validity of the assessment order passed u/s.153A - period of limitation - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed return in response to notice u/s.153A . He has also given a finding that the order has been made prior to the end of 21 months period as envisaged in section 153(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. The assessee has failed to demonstrate during the appeal proceedings that the said assessment order has not been made prior to 30-12-2011. No concrete evidence in this regard was produced before the CIT(A) to justify that the despatch of the order have been made after 30-12-2011. Nothing was brought before us to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Under these circumstances we find no merit in the above ground raised by the assessee. Undisclosed income of the assessee - unaccounted generation of cash - reliance on statement as recorded u/s. 132(4) of C F Agent - element of threat or coercion while recording the statement u/s. 132(4) - as argued denial of principles of natural justice as the copy of the statement u/s.132(4) recorded of Shri Sohan Raj Mehta C F agent was not supplied to the assessee and opportunity to cross examine Shri Sohan Raj Mehta was also not given - HELD THAT - No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of papers found in the premises of third party. Assessee being a small taxpayer, some evidence should have been found from the office or residence of the assessee to show that in fact he has received such huge amount. Similarly, the statement of Mr. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal Company owner where Shri Sohan Raj Mehta, C F agent employed is contrary to the finding of the Department. It is also the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that different Benches of the Tribunal under identical facts and circumstances have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of notings found from the premises of Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vinit Ranawat 2015 (6) TMI 608 - ITAT PUNE as deleted the addition as held he search party during the course of search at the premises of the assessee has not found any evidence whatsoever to substantiate that the assessee has in fact received any amount either party. No unaccounted asset, investment or loose paper evidencing such huge receipt has been found - the query raised during the course of search that the authorised officer has treated the same as short term advance given to the assessee. Therefore, we find some force in the submission of assessee that if the amount is a short term advance the question of the same constituting income in the hands of the assessee does not arise. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made to income from house property - determining the annual value of Mahabaleshwar property - HELD THAT - After claiming the statutory repairs u/s. 24 and municipal taxes he determined the Annual value of the Mahabaleshwar house property - We find the Ld.CIT(A) following his order for A.Y.2005-06 deleted the addition made by the AO and thereby allowed the ground raised by the assessee determining the annual value at Rs. 25,000/-. Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed his order for A.Y. 2005-06 on the very same property and since nothing contrary was brought to our notice against the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - project Sai Trinity - preconditions for claiming deduction under Industrial Park Scheme 2002 - assessee admitted to withdrawn the claim during search action - HELD THAT - As considering the amendment of rule 18C of the Rules made w.e.f. 01.08.2008 where an undertaking begins to develop an Industrial Park is also eligible for the deduction so long as the development is otherwise complete within the period specified in the Scheme as well as it fulfills the conditions envisaged in the Scheme. There is no justification for the denial of deduction nu/s 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act in the instant assessment year with regard to the profits earned by the assessee from Industrial Park - we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction made u/s 80IA(4)(iii). Addition on account of cash seized from the appellant - AO had rejected the appellant s sworn affidavit explaining the source and the evidence supporting withdrawal from his bank account summarily - CIT rejected the claim of the assessee trust on the ground that the same was an afterthought since no explanation was furnished during 132(4) statement - HELD THAT - Nothing plausible was brought to our notice to substantiate with the source of Rs. 33 lakhs so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the CIT(A). The assessee in our opinion has miserably failed to substantiate with cogent evidence that the amount belong to the trust and the amount of Rs. 10,24,000/- drawn from the Cosmos bank account was available with him. Similarly, nothing was brought to our notice to substantiate the availability of Rs. 74,000/- with the assessee and his family members. We find the Ld.CIT(A) has given valid and cogent reasons while dismissing the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Under these circumstances and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in his order on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment orders under section 153A. 2. Disallowance under section 14A. 3. Addition of undisclosed income based on seized documents. 4. Deduction under section 80IA(4). 5. Addition of unexplained cash seized during search. Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153A: The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment orders passed under section 153A on the grounds that they were served beyond the period of limitation and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed within the stipulated period and there was no concrete evidence provided by the assessee to prove otherwise. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment orders, dismissing the assessee's contention. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: The assessee contested the disallowance made under section 14A for various assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made by invoking Rule 8D, which was not applicable for the assessment years in question. The assessee did not press the ground for some years, and for the remaining years, the Tribunal found the disallowance to be excessive and not supported by adequate evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to section 14A. 3. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Seized Documents: The core issue revolved around the addition of undisclosed income based on documents seized from a third party, Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta, during a search operation. The documents indicated payments to the assessee, which the Revenue treated as unaccounted income. The assessee denied receiving any such payments and requested cross-examination of Mr. Mehta, which was not granted. The Tribunal found that the addition was made solely based on third-party documents without corroborative evidence. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such additions could not be sustained without concrete evidence directly linking the assessee to the unaccounted income. The Tribunal deleted the additions for all relevant assessment years. 4. Deduction under Section 80IA(4): The assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA(4) for its "Sai Trinity" project was initially disallowed based on a letter from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the assessee's statement during a survey. However, the assessee later obtained approval from the Ministry, which was submitted as additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that the project met all conditions specified under section 80IA(4) and the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, emphasizing that once the project is notified and approved, the Assessing Officer has limited scope to disallow the claim. 5. Addition of Unexplained Cash Seized During Search: During the search, cash was seized from the assessee's premises, and the source of the cash was explained as belonging to a charitable trust and withdrawals from a bank. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the explanation, considering it an afterthought and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash with cogent evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis for each issue, ultimately dismissing the grounds related to the validity of assessment orders, disallowance under section 14A, and addition of unexplained cash. The Tribunal deleted the additions based on seized documents due to lack of corroborative evidence and upheld the deduction under section 80IA(4) for the "Sai Trinity" project, recognizing the project's compliance with the necessary conditions and subsequent approval by the Ministry.
|
