2023 (10) TMI 265 - AT - Income Tax

Issuance of Notice u/s 153C/142(1)/ 143(2) - DR relying on the order of the A.O. and CIT(A) submitted that, while purchasing the lands by the assessee Company there was an involvement of cash and said cash was nothing but an unexplained investment of the assessee company, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. - HELD THAT - As seen from the assessment order that, during the action u/s 132 certain incriminating document found and seized relating to the assessee which had certain details of investment in purchase of agricultural land and as per the details mentioned in the said document, part sum was paid through cheque and remaining was paid in cash. Thus, the A.O. rightly assumed jurisdiction as the twin preconditions mentioned in Section 153C of the Act was satisfied i.e. existence of seized document belonging to the assessee and such seized document having bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion issuance of notice u/s 153C/142(1)/143(2) of the Act by the A.O. is justified. Ground of the Assessee is dismissed. Addition u/s 69 - It is observed that the assessee company had purchased four lands situated at Agra during the period from 16/09/2010 to 28/01/2011. The total cost of land part amount paid through cheque and part paid through cash. Apart from the same, the assessee Company admitted at the Assessment level that cheque amount is a part of the Company s books of account and cash amount was owned by some other person. The said fact also makes it clear that there was a cash component. Agriculture land bearing Khata No. 630 having area of 0.2075 hectare in Raibha Tehsil Karavh, for the purpose of purchasing the said land payment had been made through DD and as mentioned in the seized paper, cash payment has been made by the Assessee which has been compared by the A.O. on the basis of the ratio of cheque and cash in the registries mentioned in the seized paper. Since the above investments have been made by the Company which has not been disclosed in the books of accounts of the and the A.O. rightly treated the said amount as undisclosed income of the Assessee Company. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Lower Authorities, accordingly, Ground of the Assessee is dismissed. Taxation in who's hands? - whether CIT(A) erred in not admitting that alleged cash of Rs. 88,60,000/- have already been taxed in the hands of Shri Anil Mittal ? - Assessee/AR could not produce any evidence like copy of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act claim to have been given by Sh. Anil Mittal or other Directors which may show that said cash was owned by Sh. Anil Mittal. Further, the CIT(A) has also perused the assessment order in the case of Sh. Anil Mittal and found that nowhere discussed by the A.O. and even in the calculation of peak credit also, said page was not taken into consideration. Thus, the entries found in the seized document relating to the assessee were not owned up by Sh. Anil Mittal and also the assessee has not produced any document to show that the amount in dispute have already been taxed in the hands of Sh. Anil Mittal. Therefore we dismiss Ground of the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves issues related to the arbitrary nature of the order, issuance of notices under various sections of the Income Tax Act, addition of unexplained investment, ownership of cash amount, and taxation of cash in the hands of another individual.

Arbitrary Order Issue:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2011-12, alleging that the order was arbitrary, against law, and facts on record. However, as the appellant did not appear for the proceedings, the Tribunal had to decide the appeal based on the material available on record.

Issuance of Notices Issue:
The appeal raised concerns about the issuance of notices under sections 153C, 142(1), and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Departmental Representative argued that the cash involved in land purchases was unexplained investment, justifying the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Addition of Unexplained Investment Issue:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 95,60,000 under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the authorities did not consider the facts and explanations provided during the appellate proceedings. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer rightfully assumed jurisdiction based on seized documents and upheld the addition.

Ownership of Cash Amount Issue:
Regarding the ownership of the cash amount, the appellant argued that the cash surrendered by another individual should not be added to the company's income. However, the Tribunal noted that the cash component was evident from the seized documents and upheld the addition made by the authorities.

Taxation of Cash in Another Individual's Hands Issue:
The appellant contended that the alleged cash amount of Rs. 88,60,000 had already been taxed in the hands of another individual. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence supporting this claim, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee based on the findings related to the issuance of notices, addition of unexplained investment, ownership of cash amount, and lack of evidence regarding the taxation of cash in another individual's hands.