9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 89 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - search u/s. 132A - unaccounted cash payment - unexplained cash receipts - undisclosed salary receipts - HELD THAT - The assessee was specifically asked about the cash payment received in question no. 22. However, assessee stated that he will not able to reply and accounts persons will clarify the same. However, no clarification about cash payments received was filed by the assessee subsequently before the Assessing Officer. amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was received for IRCTC purposes by the assessee, however where and how this amount was utilized, the assessee did not file any reply for the same. During the course of assessment proceedings, also the assessee was specifically asked about this however no reply was filed by the assessee. Assessee himself has mentioned vide reply to question no. 3 that his total salary was ₹ 1.31 crores. All these facts indicate that assessee was receiving salary in cash which was not being recorded by M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and as well as by the assessee in their books of accounts. Therefore, the amount of cash received by the assessee of ₹ 24,25,000/- was rightly added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee and the same was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of ?24,25,000 on erroneous assumption of facts and law. 2. No matching assets or cash found from the possession of the appellant. 3. Income shown in the return matches with the appointment letter found and seized during the search. 4. Validity of assessment made by invoking the provision of section 153A for the assessment year 2009-10. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining the Addition of ?24,25,000: The Assessee contested the addition of ?24,25,000, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts. The search under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on 04.02.2009, led to the seizure of loose papers from the office premises of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. These papers indicated cash payments amounting to ?24,65,000 to the assessee, which were not recorded in the books of the company or the assessee. The assessee failed to explain these payments during the search. The AO treated this amount as unexplained income and added it to the total income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. No Matching Assets or Cash Found: The Assessee argued that no matching assets or cash were found in their possession during the search. The CIT(A) noted that the total value of assets found was ?7,42,175, which included cash, jewelry, and household goods. The Assessee emphasized that no unaccounted assets were discovered, supporting the claim that the addition was unjustified. 3. Income Shown in Return Matches with Appointment Letter: The Assessee contended that the income declared in the return matched the appointment letter found during the search. The appointment letter indicated an annual salary of ?1.31 crore, but the actual salary received was ?80.59 lakhs. The discrepancy was due to the initial filing showing net salary (net of TDS) and a subsequent correction in the revised return. The CIT(A) and AO, however, focused on the statement made by the assessee during the search, where he admitted to an annual salary of ?1.31 crore, leading to the conclusion that the assessee was receiving unrecorded cash salary. 4. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A: The Assessee argued that the assessment for the year 2009-10 under section 153A was invalid, as the search took place in the previous year 2008-09. The Tribunal noted that this legal issue was not raised in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the AO's and CIT(A)'s actions, citing the Supreme Court decision in Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, which held that undisclosed income admitted during the search could be taxed without further scrutiny of documents. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of ?24,25,000 as unexplained income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments did not warrant interference with the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of admissions made during the search and the lack of retraction or satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the assessment under section 153A, rejecting the assessee's grounds for appeal.
|
