9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 245 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 153A - Held that - No addition can be made in the case of the assessee on the basis of documents being found from the premises of the third party where neither the name of the assessee nor the fact that the assessee has paid any cash of ₹ 7,60,00,000/-. Even otherwise also it is an undisputed fact that the said documents P23 and P26 on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the case of the assessee were found during the course of the search conducted at the premises of Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. Since these documents have been found during the course of search conducted in the case of Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd., if the Assessing Officer wanted to make addition, the assessment should have been completed in the case of the assessee only u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3). No assessment has been completed u/s. 153 r.w.s. 143(3) neither any satisfaction that these documents belong to the assessee was brought on record by the Assessing Officer of Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, on this basis also the addition made in the case of the assessee cannot be sustained. See Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the search action under Section 132 and the subsequent assessment under Section 153A. 2. Addition of ?2,60,00,000/- for A.Y. 2007-08 based on loose papers seized from a third party. 3. Addition of ?5,00,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 based on loose papers seized from a third party. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Search Action under Section 132 and Subsequent Assessment under Section 153A: The assessee argued that the search action under Section 132 was invalid as no search was conducted on their premises. The premises at 111/112, Anil Complex, Ulhasnagar, where the search occurred, did not belong to the assessee firm, nor did they conduct business from there. The assessee's principal place of business was at 5th Avenue, Dhole Patil Road, Pune, as per the partnership deed and Income Tax records. The Tribunal observed that the search warrant included the assessee's name but was executed at a location unrelated to the assessee's business. It was concluded that the conditions for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153A were not met since no search was conducted at the assessee's premises, rendering the assessment under Section 153A invalid and void ab initio. 2. Addition of ?2,60,00,000/- for A.Y. 2007-08: The addition was based on loose papers (P23 and P26) seized from Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd., showing a purported payment of ?2,60,00,000/- by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that these documents did not conclusively prove that the assessee paid the amount in cash. The Director of Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. admitted that the transactions were not recorded in their books, and there was no corroborative evidence linking the payment to the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee's partners denied any cash payment during their cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that no incriminating material was found during the search on the assessee, and therefore, following the decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT, no addition could be made under Section 153A. Consequently, the addition of ?2,60,00,000/- was deleted. 3. Addition of ?5,00,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11: Similar to the earlier issue, this addition was also based on the same loose papers seized from Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence to support the addition. The Assessing Officer assumed the payment based on the profit and loss account of Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd., but no specific question regarding the ?5 crores was asked during the cross-examination of the Director. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence. Since the documents were found during the search on Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd., any addition should have been made under Section 153C, which was not done. Thus, the addition of ?5,00,00,000/- was also deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessments made under Section 153A for both A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2010-11 due to the invalidity of the search action. The additions of ?2,60,00,000/- and ?5,00,00,000/- were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses in the assessment process. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
|
