2015 (12) TMI 559 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) - Held that - It is not the case of assessee that the jurisdiction invoked under section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer is not correctly invoked. The assessee has not challenged the addition made in its hands for the captioned assessment year on the basis of incriminating documents found from his possession. In view thereof, the assessment order passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been correctly passed. The objection of the assessee before us was that in respect of second addition of ₹ 1,25,000/- since no incriminating documents were found, since assessment has not abated, no proceedings can be completed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We find no merit in the said stand of the assessee, in view of incriminating documents found from the possession of the assessee in respect of travelling expenses and addition having been made on that account, the assessment order passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been correctly made. Coming to the merits of addition in the case of assesseee we find that though the information has been received by the Assessing Officer from the return of income filed by the assessee itself, in the original assessment order passed under section 143(3), the said amount was added as income of the assessee where the said assessment order is still in force as the said assessment has not been abated, no further addition is warranted. Since the addition has already been made in the hands of assessee, there is no merit in making this addition once again while passing the order under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the said addition and allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merit

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of CIT(A) order under section 250 of the Act.
2. Allowance of expenses towards professional fees.
3. Jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act and the requirement of incriminating materials.
4. Disallowance of travelling expenses.
5. Disallowance of legal and professional fees.
6. Disallowance of interest expenses.
7. Disallowance of administrative expenses.
8. Admission of additional evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of CIT(A) Order under Section 250 of the Act:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Act, claiming it was invalid and illegal. The Tribunal did not find merit in this contention and upheld the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction and the validity of the order.

2. Allowance of Expenses towards Professional Fees:
The appellant claimed that professional fees of Rs. 1,25,000 should have been allowed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the expenditure was related to the formation of the company, which is capital in nature. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this disallowance.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act and Requirement of Incriminating Materials:
The appellant raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction under section 153C, arguing that additions could only be made based on incriminating materials found during the search. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's approval, admitted this legal issue. The Tribunal held that in cases where assessments were completed under section 143(3) and had not abated, additions under section 153A could only be made based on incriminating materials found during the search. Since incriminating documents relating to travelling expenses were found, the Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction under section 153C.

4. Disallowance of Travelling Expenses:
The Tribunal noted that during the search, documents relating to expenses of Rs. 6,50,000 were found, and the assessee had shown Rs. 14,80,366 in travelling expenses without a plausible explanation. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, and the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn this decision, as the assessee did not contest this specific addition.

5. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Fees:
The original assessment had disallowed legal expenses of Rs. 1,25,000, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that since the original assessment had already included this disallowance and no new incriminating evidence was found, the addition could not be made again under section 153C. Thus, the Tribunal deleted this addition.

6. Disallowance of Interest Expenses:
The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 98,13,699 on account of interest expenses. The Tribunal did not find any grounds to interfere with this deletion, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

7. Disallowance of Administrative Expenses:
For assessment year 2008-09, the appellant challenged the disallowance of Rs. 6,48,397 in business expenses. The CIT(A) had upheld this disallowance due to lack of evidence of business exigency. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to consider the new evidence and decide the matter afresh.

8. Admission of Additional Evidence:
The Tribunal allowed the submission of additional evidence for the assessment year 2008-09, remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer to evaluate the evidence and make a fresh determination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction under section 153C based on incriminating materials found during the search. The disallowance of professional fees was deleted due to lack of new incriminating evidence. The issue of administrative expenses was remitted back for fresh consideration with additional evidence. Other disallowances were upheld based on the findings and lack of contestation by the assessee.

← Previous Next →