2016 (8) TMI 1033 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) - period of limitation - whether the period commencing from the date of order passed by the ITSC u/s 245D i.e. final order to the date of stay granted by the single judge of the Hon ble Madras High Court should not be excluded while computing period of limitation - Held that - Where abatement of assessment proceedings u/s 245HA consequent upon admission of application by the Settlement Commission after exclusion of the period under sub-sec.(4) of sec.245HA i.e. the period during which the proceedings are pending before the Settlement Commission, period available for assessment shall not be less than one year and where such period of limitation is less than one year it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year for the purpose of determining period of limitation. In this case, final order by the Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) was passed on 21/5/1998. The stay has been granted by the Hon ble Madras High Court on 1/12/1998 that means 194 days, thus leaving a period of 171 days. Final order by the Division Bench of the Hon ble Madras High Court was passed on 16/7/2009 and received by the CIT on 4/8/2009. The assessment was completed on 11/1/2010 i.e. within 160 days from the final order of the Hon ble Madras High Court. Thus, as against available days of 171 days, the assessment passed is well within the period of limitation. The contention of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the assessment orders due to the limitation period.
2. Addition of unexplained gold and diamond under Section 69A.
3. Consideration of previously declared jewelry in wealth-tax returns.
4. Jewelry belonging to other family members and its source.
5. Addition of cash found during the search as agricultural income.
6. Levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act.
7. Exclusion of periods for computing the limitation period for assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the assessment orders due to the limitation period:
The primary issue raised by the assessees was that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events, including the search and seizure operation on 08/07/1992, the filing of the income return on 29/03/1994, and the subsequent application to the Income-tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 20/09/1995. The ITSC admitted the application on 23/11/1995, and the final order was passed on 21/05/1998. The assessee challenged this order, leading to a stay by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The High Court's final order on 16/07/2009 set aside the ITSC's order, allowing the AO to proceed with the assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment was within the limitation period, considering the exclusions provided under Section 153 and the proviso to Explanation 1 of the Income-tax Act.

2. Addition of unexplained gold and diamond under Section 69A:
The assessee, Yogesh Achar, contested the addition of ?17,07,441/- as unexplained gold and diamond under Section 69A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which had confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and dismissed this ground of appeal.

3. Consideration of previously declared jewelry in wealth-tax returns:
The assessee argued that the jewelry declared by Shri Sandeep Palke in his wealth-tax return should be considered. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate this explanation and did not give credit for the declared jewelry. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the assessee's claim.

4. Jewelry belonging to other family members and its source:
The assessee claimed that jewelry belonging to Gayatri Palke, sourced from her husband's earnings as an NRI, should be excluded. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the confirmation provided by the husband. Despite this, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

5. Addition of cash found during the search as agricultural income:
The assessee contested the addition of ?20,000/- found during the search, claiming it was from agricultural income. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the addition without giving the appellant an opportunity to submit details. However, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, finding no merit in the assessee's argument.

6. Levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act:
Both assessees contested the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the levy of interest as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

7. Exclusion of periods for computing the limitation period for assessment:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed the periods to be excluded while computing the limitation period for assessment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis, which excluded the period during which the application was pending before the ITSC and the period of stay granted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders were within the permissible time frame, dismissing the assessees' contention of the orders being time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer and the validity of the assessment orders within the limitation period. The appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, and the registry was directed to post the appeal for hearing in the regular course.