9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 775 - AT - Income TaxAddition of on account of cash found at the time of search seizure - HELD THAT - The assessee had stated during assessment proceedings that cash found was the money received on functions or during meet by elderly members of whole family or close relatives to the younger one. . The AO had rejected this explanation on the ground that no details of the receipt in the shape of occasions, name of the relatives or other details to prove the genuineness of the cash received . We find from perusal of the record that the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the aforesaid addition of ₹ 4,15,400/- even during the appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). Even during the appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, second ground of appeal filed by assessee in ITAT is dismissed. Enhancement made by CIT(A)on account of unexplained jewellery found during search - HELD THAT - We find that Ld.CIT(A) has given detailed reasoning for enhancement of ₹ 13,69,100/- made by him in the impugned appellate order dated 31.05.2016 on account of unexplained jewellery. During appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee has failed to bring any material for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by Ld.CIT(A) in aforesaid impugned order dated 31.05.2016. Accordingly, 3rd, 4th and 5th grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are dismissed. - the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in issuing appellate order by CIT(A) 2. Addition of ?4,15,400 as unaccounted income 3. Enhancement of ?13,69,100 for unexplained jewellery 4. Applicability of interest under sections 234A(3) and 234B(3) 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(C) and 271AAA Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Issuing Appellate Order by CIT(A): The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) did not follow CBDT Instruction No. 20/2003 regarding issuing the appellate order within 15 days of the last hearing. However, the tribunal found no material evidence to substantiate this claim. The assessee did not comply with Rule 10 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which requires an affidavit to support such allegations. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed. 2. Addition of ?4,15,400 as Unaccounted Income: The Assessing Officer (AO) added ?4,15,400 found during a search as unaccounted income, rejecting the assessee's explanation that it was received during family functions. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory details or evidence. The tribunal upheld this decision, as the assessee did not furnish any new material or satisfactory explanation during the appellate proceedings. 3. Enhancement of ?13,69,100 for Unexplained Jewellery: The CIT(A) enhanced the income by ?13,69,100 for unexplained jewellery found during the search. The assessee argued that this matter was already discussed and accepted during the assessment proceedings, but failed to produce any office note or evidence to support this claim. The tribunal noted that the AO had clearly recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's explanation regarding the jewellery. The tribunal found the enhancement justified and upheld CIT(A)’s decision, referencing judicial precedents that support the CIT(A)’s power to enhance income based on matters arising from the assessment order. 4. Applicability of Interest under Sections 234A(3) and 234B(3): The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the imposition of interest under sections 234A(3) and 234B(3), stating that the levy of interest is mandatory as per the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, as the assessee did not provide any evidence to show that the interest charged was excessive. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Sections 271(1)(C) and 271AAA: The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's challenge to the initiation of penalty proceedings, considering it premature. The tribunal agreed with this view, noting that the initiation of penalty proceedings is a separate process and cannot be challenged at this stage. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) on all grounds. The assessee was given liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if they chose to do so.
|
