9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 59 - AT - Income TaxReassessment - There is no dispute to the fact that the return filed on 12-09-2001 was processed u/s. 143(1) and no order u/s.143(3) was passed as mentioned by the AO as well as the CIT(A). Therefore, there was no application of mind by the AO. We find the notice u/s.148 was issued on 03-02-2004 which is within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT) the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO is legally valid. Unexplained credit - addition u/s 68 - held that - Once the assessee discharges the initial burden cast on him by giving the details and the other party having confirmed the outstanding balance, the assessee in our opinion cannot be held responsible for lapse or omission on the part of the other assessee. Addition u/s 41(1) - old liabilities - CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of 5 parties and sustained the addition made by the AO on account of other parties - following the decisionin the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT), order of CIT(A) sustained - decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,30,433/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the I.T. Act. 3. Addition of Rs. 2,05,712/- under Section 41(1) of the I.T. Act as cessation of liability. 4. Addition of Rs. 1 lakh as unexplained credit in the name of Green Age Agro Engineering. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Re-assessment Proceedings: The assessee challenged the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO, arguing that there was no concrete reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the AO acted on mere suspicion. The CIT(A) upheld the re-assessment, stating that the return was processed under Section 143(1) without regular assessment, and the survey revealed credits that appeared non-genuine, justifying the re-opening. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which supports re-assessment within four years if there is reason to believe income escaped assessment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the ground. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,30,433/- as Unexplained Credit: The AO added Rs. 1,30,433/- under Section 68, as the credit in the name of M/s. Himali Enterprises was not substantiated. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting discrepancies in the creditor's records. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient details, including a confirmation letter from the creditor, and the failure of the creditor to file a balance sheet for M/s. Himali Enterprises did not justify the addition. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. 3. Addition of Rs. 2,05,712/- under Section 41(1): The AO added Rs. 3,40,676/- as cessation of liability under Section 41(1), which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 2,05,712/- for specific creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., which supports treating long-outstanding liabilities as income. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide adequate explanations for these liabilities, confirming the addition. 4. Addition of Rs. 1 lakh as Unexplained Credit: The AO added Rs. 1 lakh as unexplained credit in the name of Green Age Agro Engineering, based on a statement from the creditor admitting difficulty in proving the source. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, referencing a similar case involving the assessee's brother. The Tribunal found no information on the outcome of the brother's case and remanded the issue to the AO to decide based on the final outcome in the brother's case. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the legality of the re-assessment proceedings and confirmed the addition under Section 41(1). It directed the deletion of the addition under Section 68 and remanded the issue of unexplained credit of Rs. 1 lakh for further examination. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
