2018 (3) TMI 594 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Search and seizure operation u/s 132 - Held that - CIT(A) and the Tribunal premised their findings upon the admitted documents in the form of a compromise settlement in the course of which the relevant share of the parties rights and liabilities have been settled. The business, which had yielded such interest, had to be inevitably apportioned between the two brothers who had parted ways later. Income generated was during the period when both of them were together. Essentially, being factual, the findings are based upon a rationale which is both convincing and reasonable. The Court is of the opinion that there is no error of law with respect to the additions made. As far as the addition with respect to the unaccounted sum of ₹ 92,16,098/- goes, the Court notices that besides contesting that the assessee s son was nick named Golu , there cannot be any denial that the documents seized clearly revealed the total expenditure that the assessee incurred in respect of both his children. Those were not traceable to the books of account or the returns that he had disclosed earlier. In these circumstances, the addition made was justified. - Decided in favour of the Revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of additions based on statements and materials seized from a separate but related premise.
2. Validity of assessment without a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Apportionment of undisclosed interest income between the assessee and his brother.
4. Addition of unaccounted expenditure on the marriage of the assessee’s children.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Additions Based on Statements and Materials Seized:
The search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the premises of the appellant-assessee and his brother. The Assessing Officer (AO) added amounts based on documents seized from the brother’s premises, attributing a portion of the undisclosed interest income to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the consolidated balance sheets and other documents reflected assets and liabilities attributable to both the assessee and his brother. The Tribunal emphasized that the income arising from these assets could not be exclusively attributed to any single individual but belonged to various family members and group companies.

2. Validity of Assessment Without a Notice Under Section 153C:
The assessee contended that the assessment was invalid in the absence of a notice under Section 153C, arguing that materials seized from his brother’s premises required a separate notice and satisfaction recording by the AO. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the search was a joint operation, and the materials seized could be used against both parties without invoking Section 153C. The court agreed, highlighting that the search and seizure were conducted simultaneously, with the warrant issued in the names of both the assessee and his brother. The court concluded that there was no necessity for a separate notice under Section 153C, as the procedure followed provided the assessee with adequate opportunity to respond to the materials attributed to him.

3. Apportionment of Undisclosed Interest Income:
The Appellate Commissioner apportioned the undisclosed interest income between the assessee and his brother in a 40:60 ratio, based on a settlement award by the Company Law Board. The Tribunal upheld this apportionment, noting that the compromise settlement defined the share of rights and liabilities between the two brothers. The court found this apportionment reasonable, given the business relationship and subsequent division of assets between the brothers. The court affirmed that the findings were factual and based on a convincing rationale, with no error of law in the additions made.

4. Addition of Unaccounted Expenditure on Marriage:
The AO added ?92,16,098/- to the assessee’s income, attributing it to unaccounted expenditure on the marriage of the assessee’s children, based on documents seized from the assessee’s premises. The court noted that the seized documents clearly revealed the total expenditure, which was not traceable to the assessee’s disclosed books of account or returns. The court found the addition justified, as the documents provided a clear basis for the unaccounted expenditure.

Conclusion:
The court held that the question of law framed was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the validity of the additions and the procedures followed during the search and assessment. The court emphasized that the apportionment of income and the addition of unaccounted expenditure were based on reasonable and factual findings, with no failure of natural justice or denial of opportunity to the assessee.

← Previous Next →