9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,85,900 based on the difference between the actual purchase price and the declared purchase price of a property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147(a): The first issue pertains to the challenge against the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the reassessment was invalid because the original assessment was completed after a raid, and all material facts were already available to the assessing authority. The assessee relied on judgments from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court to support this contention. However, the CIT (Appeals) noted that the assessee's representative had not pressed this point during the appeal, leading to its rejection. The Tribunal found that the contention of the assessee lacked merit. The assessee had consciously waived this ground before the CIT (Appeals) and could not raise it again before the Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal held that the reopening of the completed assessment was valid, as the seized diary clearly indicated an under-statement of sale consideration, justifying the reassessment under section 147(a). 2. Addition of Rs. 1,85,900 Based on Property Purchase Price: The second issue concerns the addition of Rs. 1,85,900, representing the difference between the actual purchase price of a property and the declared price. The property in question was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 3,76,121 as per a seized diary, but the declared price was Rs. 1,90,221. The assessee denied making any extra payment and submitted an affidavit stating that the diary's note was incorrect. The seller also denied receiving any extra amount. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including statements from the assessee and her husband, and found the explanation of an inadvertent mistake in the diary's note unconvincing. The Tribunal held that the seized diary's contents were clear and precise, indicating the real purchase consideration. The burden of proving otherwise lay on the assessee, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,85,900 in the hands of the wife on a substantive basis. 3. Consequential Decision in the Case of the Husband: Since the addition of Rs. 1,85,900 was confirmed in the hands of the wife on a substantive basis, the protective addition made in the case of the husband was cancelled. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in the case of the wife and allowed the appeal in the case of the husband. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,85,900 in the hands of the wife. Consequently, the protective addition in the case of the husband was cancelled. The appeal in the case of the wife was dismissed, and the appeal in the case of the husband was allowed.
|
