9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 838 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A /153C - Necessity to record satisfaction - As argued satisfaction as required u/s. 153C was not recorded by the Ld. AO. - incriminating material found and seized at the time of search and seizure operations U/s. 132 - HELD THAT - Since there is no representation by the assessee before us, based on the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly examined the facts in the present case and has rejected the legal ground raised by the assessee and therefore we found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Commencement of six preceding assessment years - We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly examined and adjudicated the issue that construction of provision leads to distortion and antivirus to the letter and spirit of the law. Therefore as unable to find any reason to agree with the argument of the appellant that the AY 2006-07 is beyond six preceding AYs. Accordingly, the legal grounds and the additional grounds raised by the appellant are rejected being illogical and such situation amounts to putting the cart before the horse - no interference is required on this issue. Additions of the opening balance of capital and loans and advances appearing on the assets side of the balance sheet - The overall impression conveyed by the details is that the appellant is having taxable income but deliberately not filed the returns of income. He has confirmed the fact of non-filing the returns of income during the appellant proceedings but reasons were not made known except stating that the appellant did not understand the gravity of non-filing the return of income as he was illiterate and not aware of the consequences of non-filing. This plea of the appellant may look reasonable before conducting survey U/s. 133A of the Act. The same plea holds no water subsequent to survey operation due to the fact that the appellant appeared before lower authorities, filed details with the aid and service of professional, deposed statements and he was made aware of the consequences. Hence, the plea of ignorance is rejected and the conduct is contumacious to the authority - no interference is required on this ground. Restricting the agricultural income - We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has disclosed an agricultural income in the capital account filed before the Ld. AO. Revenue Authorities has considered the amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs which is recorded in the books of accounts as agricultural income of the assessee for the relevant AY and accordingly allowed the same. Since there is no representation and no evidence submitted before us with respect to earning of the agricultural income of Rs. 3 lakhs, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and hence this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition for purchase of Venkateswara Nagar Plot - HELD THAT - We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has submitted that the assessee has earned agricultural income for Rs. 3 lakhs and other income of Rs. 3 lakhs being interest income. However, while filing the return of income the assessee has disclosed Rs. 1.50 lakhs as agricultural income in the capital account and Rs. 50,000/- profit from real estate business. It is seen from the order of the Ld. CIT (A) that no details are filed before the Ld. Revenue Authorities for the balance of Rs. 4 lakhs. Assessee also not represented before us nor filed any evidence regarding the interest income and agricultural income which the assessee claims to have purchased the plot at Venkateswara Nagar for Rs. 6 lakhs. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and therefore we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence we hereby dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee is a regular non-filer of the return of income which tantamounts to concealment of income, even though the return of income was filed after the issue of notice U/s. 153C of the Act - HELD THAT - As seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has pleaded ignorance as he is an illiterate and not conversant with the tax matters and also not aware of the consequences of non-filing of returns of income. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has engaged a qualified Tax Consultant for reply to the final show cause notice. CIT(A) has held that the assessee has wilfully failed to file his return of income or to substantiate the investments and the additions. CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee was subject to tax audit u/s. 44AB of the Act for some years however has not produced any tax audit report before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. CIT(A) has therefore concluded that since the assessee neither substantiated nor explained the case with cogent evidences, it is deemed concealment of income and hence penalty order needs to be confirmed. Even before us, the assessee as not represented his case substantiating the reasons for non-filing of return of income. We therefore are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances of the case and we hereby dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on seized materials. 3. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C: The assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the satisfaction required under this section was not recorded by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued a notice under Section 153C based on incriminating material found during a search operation under Section 132 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who had rejected the assessee's argument by confirming that the AO had recorded the necessary satisfaction and that the seized materials were related to the assessee's real estate business. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and held that the proceedings under Section 153C were valid. 2. Validity of Additions Made by the AO: The assessee contested the additions made by the AO, including the opening balance of capital, loans and advances, and agricultural income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which was based on the assessee's failure to file returns of income and lack of evidence to substantiate the claims. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee did not file returns despite having taxable income and had engaged a tax consultant only after receiving the final show cause notice. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's conduct was contumacious and that the additions were justified. 3. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid, citing various grounds including the lack of clear specification in the notice and the invalidity of the proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal dismissed these arguments, noting that the assessee was a regular non-filer of returns despite having taxable income and had failed to file returns even after multiple notices. The CIT(A) had observed that the assessee's plea of ignorance did not hold water as he had engaged a tax consultant. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty, considering the assessee's willful failure to file returns and substantiate the investments and additions. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the validity of the proceedings under Section 153C, the additions made by the AO, and the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A) and concluded that the assessee's arguments were devoid of merit.
|
