9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 729 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - proof of incriminating material found in search - HELD THAT - Conditions of Section 153C are not satisfied in this case. The A.O, therefore, rightly framed regular assessment u/s 143(3) after considering the incriminating material available on record. A.O. in para-2 with regard to addition of the interest on PDCs has mentioned that on perusal of the bills of payments of purchase consideration it was noticed that only part payments have been made while executing the sale deed and balance consideration was paid through PDCs. Therefore, the addition is made by the A.O. on the basis of the documentary evidences produced by the assessee with regard to the payments mentioned in the sale deed. A.O, therefore, correctly made assessment under section 143(3). A.O. has examined the evidences available on record and rightly came to the conclusion that assessee paid interest in cash on PDCS. CIT(A) on examination of the material on record in the light of seized material and others rightly directed the A.O. to compute interest from PDCs after six months from the date of issue of PDCs. D.R. relied upon the above decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in which similar directions of the CIT(A) have been confirmed by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any representation from the side of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the appeal of assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal of Assessee dismissed.
Issues:
Assessment under section 143(3) vs. section 153C - Addition of interest on post-dated cheques (PDCs) - Confirmation of assessment by Ld. CIT(A) - Direction to re-compute interest after six months from the date of issue of PDCs. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Assessee challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-33, New Delhi, for the A.Y. 2007-2008. The Assessee, a part of the BPTP Group, declared income of ?31,000. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted discrepancies in land purchase transactions where part payments were made during sale deed execution, and the balance was paid through PDCs with interest paid in cash. The A.O. added ?13,54,914 for unrecorded interest payments outside the books of account. 2. The Assessee contended that assessment should have been under section 153C, not 143(3). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment under section 143(3) as unaccounted interest expenditure was evident. The Ld. CIT(A) cited the Pooran Lal vs. CIT case to justify assessment based on seized material, even if obtained in violation of the Act. The issue of interest payment on PDCs was partially allowed by Ld. CIT(A) directing re-computation after six months from PDC issuance. 3. The Assessee's appeal was heard in absence on multiple dates. The ITAT Delhi noted similar cases where interest re-computation was upheld. The appeal challenged the assessment under section 143(3) and lack of material for the addition. The ITAT upheld the assessment, citing documentary evidence of PDC payments and interest. The A.O. correctly framed the assessment based on evidence, and Ld. CIT(A) rightly directed interest re-computation from PDC issuance. 4. The ITAT rejected the appeal, dismissing the Assessee's challenge to the assessment under section 143(3) and the addition of interest on PDCs. With no representation from the Assessee, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the assessment and Ld. CIT(A)'s directions for interest re-computation. The ITAT concurred with the A.O.'s assessment and Ld. CIT(A)'s findings based on the seized material and documentary evidence. This detailed analysis covers the issues of assessment, addition of interest on PDCs, and the confirmation of the assessment by the Ld. CIT(A) with directions for interest re-computation after six months from PDC issuance.
|
