9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1053 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT - We have no hesitation to hold that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.Since we have set aside the assessment itself, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. Before closing, we have to point out that the DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukundray K. Shah 2007 (4) TMI 201 - SUPREME COURT . We find that the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand in as much as in that case, the Revenue came to know about the transaction, triggering the provisions of section 222e of the Act from the diary found during the search proceedings. Whereas in the case in hand, the sale deeds found at the time of search were same sale deeds which were considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - amount of ₹ 1.05 crores towards purchase of land has been paid to various persons in cash - HELD THAT - The primary object of enacting section 40A(3) of the Act was two-fold firstly, putting a check on trading transactions with a mind to evade the liability of tax on income earned out of such transaction, and secondly, to inculcate the banking habits amongst the business community. In our understanding, this provision was directly related to curb evasion of tax and inculcating banking habits. Therefore, once the genuineness of the transaction is accepted and the payees are identified, then the intention of inserting the provisions of section 40A(3) is fulfilled. Considering, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Confirmation of disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153A: The assessee challenged the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for framing assessment under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment without bringing any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act. The facts revealed that a search operation was conducted at the assessee's premises on 21.01.2011. The original return of income was filed on 21.11.2006, and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 13.05.2008, indicating that the assessment was completed on the date of the search. The law, as settled by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 281 CTR 0045 [Del] and followed in Meeta Gutgutia 82 Taxmann.com 287, states that a completed assessment can be reopened under Section 153A only if some incriminating material is found during the search. During the search, several sale deeds were seized, revealing purchases of land aggregating to ?4.01 crores, with ?1.05 crores paid in cash. The Assessing Officer believed that the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act applied. However, the transactions were recorded in the regular books of account, and the sources of payments were undisputed. The sale deeds were the same as those considered during the original assessment under Section 143(3), thus not constituting incriminating material. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla clarified that an assessment under Section 153A should be based on seized material. Since no new incriminating material was found, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed invalid and quashed. 2. Confirmation of Disallowance under Section 40A(3): For the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee contested the disallowance of ?6.80 lakhs made under Section 40A(3) of the Act. During the search, sale deeds revealed land purchases aggregating to ?1.11 crores, with ?34 lakhs paid in cash. The Assessing Officer added 20% of the cash payment, amounting to ?6.80 lakhs, under Section 40A(3). The assessee argued that the transactions were recorded in the books of account, and the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the payees were not disputed. The invocation of Section 40A(3) was deemed mechanical and uncalled for. The tribunal considered the intention behind Section 40A(3), which was to curb tax evasion and inculcate banking habits. Judicial precedents, such as Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO and CIT vs. CPL Tannery, supported the view that genuine transactions should not be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if the identity of the payees and the genuineness of the transactions are established. Given the facts and judicial decisions, the tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of ?6.80 lakhs, allowing the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: Both appeals by the assessee were allowed. The assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed due to the absence of incriminating material, and the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted, as the transactions were genuine and the payees were identified.
|
