2018 (11) TMI 941 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted sales consideration - unaccounted money - Held that - The generation to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one, only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing are brought to the record of the assessing officer. In this matter, therefore, AO is justified in considering not only the sale deeds that were found during the search proceedings but also the other material in the shape of statements of the sellers and the slip containing the calculations in respect of sale consideration. We therefore find that the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases where the assessments were concluded, have no application to the facts of the case on hand. In respect of the evidence on record, impugned order speaks that AO relied upon the piece of paper containing some calculations and the name Bishan , and all these papers were filed alongwith the remand report dated 25th February, 2011 copies of which were furnished to the assessee also. The sums mentioned therein tallied with the contents of the statements as well as the bank statements of the sellers. The statements of the sellers were confirmed by the brokers and the events and facts are confirming each other. Revenue did the best it could do to find out the truth and the assessee denied himself an opportunity to wriggle himself out of the situation and such a conduct only shows that he is no good defence. Thus the authorities below are justified in reaching the conclusion that the sale consideration was ₹ 3,01,96,750/-and the unaccounted money of ₹ 2,58,24,044/- was paid by the assessee in cash to the sellers and such an amount is taxable in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of opportunity for cross-examination.
3. Validity of addition based on statements and documents seized.
4. Taxability of unaccounted money.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year was 2006-07, and the search took place on 07/09/2006, indicating that the assessment was pending. The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in considering both the sale deeds found during the search and other materials, including statements of sellers and calculation slips, as part of the assessment under Section 153A. The Tribunal found that the decisions cited by the assessee, such as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, were not applicable as they pertained to concluded assessments.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
The assessee contended that no adequate opportunity for cross-examination was provided, violating the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the AO provided multiple opportunities for cross-examination, which the assessee failed to avail. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was present during the remand proceedings but left the premises when the witnesses arrived. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee deliberately failed to avail the opportunity for cross-examination, and thus, the claim of inadequate opportunity was unfounded.

3. Validity of Addition Based on Statements and Documents Seized:
The AO added ?2,58,24,044/- to the income of the assessee based on statements of sellers and brokers, corroborated by a calculation slip. The assessee argued that the handwriting on the slip did not belong to him and without expert opinion, the authorities were not justified in relying on it. The Tribunal found that the oral evidence of the witnesses was well corroborated by the calculation slip and other documents. The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities did their best to find the truth, and the assessee's non-cooperation in cross-examination strengthened the conclusions reached by the authorities.

4. Taxability of Unaccounted Money:
The issue was whether the unaccounted money used for the purchase of land should be taxed in the hands of the assessee or the sellers. The Tribunal noted that the revenue was concerned with the taxability of the unaccounted money that flowed into the sale transaction. The Tribunal found that the evidence collected, including statements of sellers and brokers and the calculation slip, indicated that the sale consideration was ?3,01,96,250/- and the unaccounted money of ?2,58,24,044/- was paid by the assessee in cash. The Tribunal upheld the addition, concluding that the unaccounted money was taxable in the hands of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration was ?3,01,96,750/-, and the unaccounted money of ?2,58,24,044/- was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and held that the appeal was devoid of merits.

← Previous Next →