2018 (7) TMI 466 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - whether Addl./Joint Commissioner while granting an approval u/s.153D to an order to be passed u/s.153A no opportunity need to be provided to the Appellant? - Held that -Merely because, Section 153D of the Act requires a prior approval of the Draft Assessment Order by the higher Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner in the present case, because the Assessment Order was passed by the Authority below the rank of the Joint Commissioner, the provisions of the Act do not mandate that a fresh round of opportunity of hearing should be given to the Assessee by such Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner also even for approving Draft Assessment Order. It is not a case where the Assessee did not have any opportunity of hearing before any of the Authorities to defend his case and some assessment of tax has been made against him fastening the liability of tax against the Assessee. The Assessing Authority as well as the two Appellate Authorities who have concurrent powers of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. No substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. Estimation of income of the assessee who was working as Priest - estimate based on the relevant material seized during the course of search and the statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132 4 - Held that - Assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of ₹ 75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of ₹ 35 lakhs, ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively - No ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 then the subsequent retraction of the statement by the assessee without any corroborating evidence cannot be accepted as the assessee has not explained the statement and how the income shown in the seized material is not correct. Therefore mere retraction of statement without explaining circumstances as well as corroborating evidence, it cannot be accepted being an after thought. Undisclosed investment in Flat - Held that - As admitted by the Assessee under Section 132 4 proceedings, that unaccounted income of ₹ 15 lakhs was invested for the flat, pure questions of facts being analyzed by the fact finding authority, in our opinion, the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Decided against assessee

Issues:
1. Approval process under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of reasons for compliance notice under Section 153A of the Act.
3. Corroboration of income under the head "Pooja" based on seized material.
4. Addition of unaccounted income in the purchase of a flat.

Analysis:

Approval Process under Section 153D:
The appellant contended that the Joint Commissioner did not provide an opportunity of hearing before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order. The argument was based on internal guidelines and a case precedent. However, the court held that the statutory provision of Section 153D does not mandate an additional opportunity of hearing by the approving authority. The Assessing Authority had already given a fair hearing to the appellant, and the guidelines cited were internal and not binding. No prejudice was shown due to the lack of a separate hearing, and hence, no substantial question of law arose in this regard.

Reasons for Compliance Notice under Section 153A:
The appellant questioned the validity of a notice issued under Section 153A, arguing that reasons should be recorded for compliance time fixation. The court found that this issue did not raise a substantial question of law. The notice was deemed valid, and the requirement of reasons for compliance time fixation was not necessary under the law.

Corroboration of Income under "Pooja" Head:
The court examined the seized material and the appellant's statement regarding income under the "Pooja" head. The tribunal found sufficient evidence corroborating the statement, dismissing the appellant's retraction as an afterthought. The court concluded that the matter was an estimate based on relevant material seized during the search, and no substantial question of law arose in this context.

Addition of Unaccounted Income in Flat Purchase:
Regarding the addition of unaccounted income in the purchase of a flat, the court noted the discrepancy in the sale agreement and the actual investment. The appellant admitted investing unaccounted income in the flat purchase. The court considered this a pure question of fact analyzed by the fact-finding authority and found no substantial question of law. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no substantial questions of law in the issues raised regarding the approval process, compliance notice, income corroboration, and unaccounted income addition.

← Previous Next →