9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of search and seizure under s. 132(1). 2. Validity of search warrant issued in the name of assessee's father and family. 3. Justifiability of the search. 4. Jurisdiction of AO to assess under Chapter XIV-B. 5. Validity of notices issued under s. 158BC r/w s. 158BD. 6. Quantum of addition based on the statement of assessee's father and other evidence. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of search and seizure under s. 132(1) The Tribunal held that the search and seizure operation conducted under s. 132(1) was valid. The search was authorized by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.) and was conducted at the residential premises of Shri Shree Chand Soni, where the assessee also resided. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction of the authority authorizing the search is not justifiable, but the existence of belief is necessary. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s observation regarding satisfaction. Issue 2: Validity of search warrant issued in the name of assessee's father and family The Tribunal held that the search warrant issued in the name of "Shri Shree Chand Soni and family" was valid. The search was conducted at the residential premises where the assessee resided with his father. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from other cases where the search warrant was not issued in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the search warrant covered the assessee as a member of the family residing in the specified premises. Issue 3: Justifiability of the search The Tribunal held that the legality and validity of the search are justifiable and subject to judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted to find material or evidence relating to the investment in the construction of the house, not to search for the house itself. The Tribunal found that the search warrant was issued based on information and belief, and the search was conducted legally. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of AO to assess under Chapter XIV-B The Tribunal held that the AO had valid and proper jurisdiction to assess the assessee under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the notices issued under s. 158BC and s. 158BD were valid and conferred jurisdiction on the AO to make the assessment. Issue 5: Validity of notices issued under s. 158BC r/w s. 158BD The Tribunal held that the notices issued under s. 158BC r/w s. 158BD and subsequently under s. 158BC were valid. The Tribunal found that the AO had jurisdiction to assess the assessee under Chapter XIV-B. The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the validity of the notices. Issue 6: Quantum of addition based on the statement of assessee's father and other evidence The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 14.50 lakhs was not justified and was excessive. The Tribunal noted that the statement of Shri Shree Chand Soni was retracted and there was no supportive evidence to establish the cost of construction as stated in the admission. The Tribunal found that the valuation reports and other evidence suggested a lower cost of construction. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 7.50 lakhs as declared by the assessee in the block return. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed in part, with the addition being restricted to Rs. 7.50 lakhs.
|
