2015 (8) TMI 368 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment completed under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 153A - additions relating to the difference in considerations paid on purchase of properties - Held that - Admittedly the additions were made by the assessing officer placing reliance on the document seized (SJ-III) during the course of the search of another assessee by name Babu John and also the sworn statements given by the assessee on 24.10.2008 and 30.10.2008. In the statement dated 24.10.2008, the assessee had accepted the genuineness of the entries made in the above referred document. In the statement dated 30.10.2008, he had reiterated and confirmed the earlier statement of 24.10.2008. However it was only during the assessment proceedings that he gave a letter dated 15.02.2010 retracting from the earlier two statements. However, rightly, the assessing officer rejected the belated retraction and proceeded to complete the assessment relying on the document seized and the two statements of the assessee himself. Therefore, these additions made relying on this document and the statements, cannot be said to be illegal. The Tribunal s order shows that despite the above, the Tribunal has set aside some of the additions and remitted the matter to the assessing officer for re-consideration. In so far as the additions which were confirmed by the Tribunal are concerned, they are fully substantiated by the document and the statements relied on by the Department. We do not find any illegality nor do we find any question of law arising in these appeals for consideration. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the assessee were challenging the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The assessee was engaged in manufacturing ornaments for jewellery shops and was a Director of two companies involved in kuri or chit business. Search and seizure operations were conducted at the business premises, leading to the completion of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 153A of the Income Tax Act with various additions related to consideration paid on purchase of properties. The Appellate Commissioner confirmed the additions, prompting the assessee to file further appeals before the Tribunal, which led to the impugned common order being challenged before the High Court.

The assessing officer had made additions based on documents seized during the search of another assessee and the statements provided by the assessee himself. Despite a belated retraction from the earlier statements during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer proceeded to complete the assessment relying on the seized document and the initial statements. The High Court noted that these additions made based on the document and statements were not illegal. The Tribunal, however, set aside some of the additions and remitted the matter to the assessing officer for re-consideration.

Regarding the additions confirmed by the Tribunal, the High Court found them fully substantiated by the documents and statements relied upon by the Department. There was no identified illegality or legal question arising from these confirmed additions. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to have failed and was dismissed accordingly.