9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 26 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Unaccounted investment - HELD THAT - Since the revenue has not brought any other material evidence to prove that the alleged amount is purely an income the assessee certainly deserves benefit of doubt and further since below the alleged account itself the sum of ₹ 22,40,000/- is mentioned as an amount referred as balance to be for payment. Addition for unaccounted investment in our view cannot be more than ₹ 22,40,000/-. No substantial question of law. No reason has been recorded by the Assessing Officer with regard to the loose papers (LPS-1 page-4) being of the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction in terms of Section 153C - It is for the first time this contention has been raised before this Court. It may be noted that the premises of Regal Homes Group was subjected to search under Section 132 of the Act on 12.08.2014. The residential premises of the assessee were also searched together with the group Concerns including M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and Regal Samarth Krishna Builders in which appellant-assessee had interest as partner therein. Thus, in the present case, Section 153A of the Act was attracted and accordingly, assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act had been framed. Since the search had taken place at the residence of the assessee as well, thus, no proceedings for framing assessment under Section 153C of the Act arose. Therefore, Section 153C of the Act had no relevancy in the facts and circumstances of the present case.Consequently, it is concluded that the question No.(ii) as claimed, is misconceived. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's finding that ?22,40,000/- is the income of the appellant is perverse. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that document LPS-1 page no.4 belongs to the assessee without proper reasons under Section 153C of the Act. 3. Whether the LPS-1 page no.4, not in the handwriting of the assessee and not recovered from his premises, could be treated as belonging to the assessee. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Tribunal's Finding on Income of ?22,40,000/- The Tribunal's finding that ?22,40,000/- is the income of the appellant was based on seized documents during a search operation. The appellant contended that the loose paper was neither in his handwriting nor found in his possession. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was a partner in firms involved in the projects mentioned in the document. The Tribunal found that the appellant's capital in these firms corroborated part of the amounts mentioned in the seized documents. The addition of ?87,60,000/- was initially made, but the Tribunal allowed deletion of ?65,20,000/- after considering the capital accounts and payments made through cheques. The remaining ?22,40,000/- was considered unaccounted investment and added to the appellant's income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the systematic details in the seized documents and the appellant's failure to provide evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal's view was deemed plausible, and no illegality or perversity was found in its findings. Issue 2: Document LPS-1 Page No.4 and Section 153C The appellant argued that no reasons were recorded under Section 153C of the Act regarding the document LPS-1 page-4 belonging to him, questioning the assumption of jurisdiction. However, the court noted that the search was conducted at the appellant's premises and the premises of associated firms. Therefore, the assessment was framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act, not Section 153C. The court concluded that Section 153C was not relevant in this case as the search included the appellant's premises, making the proceedings under Section 153A appropriate. The judgments cited by the appellant related to Section 153C were found inapplicable. Issue 3: Ownership of LPS-1 Page No.4 The appellant denied that the document belonged to him, arguing it was not in his handwriting and was not found at his premises. The Tribunal, however, found that the document contained systematic details related to the appellant's business activities and partnerships. The Tribunal noted that the document was found during a survey at an associated firm's office and included details of projects the appellant was involved in. The Tribunal concluded that there was a nexus between the appellant and the seized material, and the appellant failed to account for the ?22,40,000/-. The Tribunal's findings were based on the appreciation of the material and circumstances, and the court upheld these findings as plausible. Conclusion: The court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's findings on the issues raised by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and material on record, and the appellant's contentions were not supported by sufficient evidence.
|
