2021 (10) TMI 263 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income of the assessee - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - No further enquiry was made by the Ld. AO and he merely interpreted that the amount received by assessee is her undisclosed income routed through Shri Manoj Kumar Jain. Fail to find any merit in this finding because before us bank account of the assessee is not placed nor the ld. AO had made any enquiry to examine that whether the alleged sum was credited in the bank account of the assessee, which is a primary condition to make addition u/s 68. Secondly, cash was deposited in the account of Mukesh Kumar Jain, so substantive addition ought to have been made in his hand if sufficient explanation was not offered and if needed protective addition could have been made in the hands of assessee. Thirdly, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain said to have received some amount credited in the bank account from sale of land, thereafter no efforts seems to have been made by the revenue authorities as appearing from records, to check the correctness of this statement. As per actual matrix of the case and loose ends of the enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities, assessee deserve to succeed as there is no direct material found by the revenue authorities against her to make the addition for undisclosed income - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of proceedings under section 153A
2. Addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer
3. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

Jurisdiction of proceedings under section 153A:
The appeal was filed challenging the initiation of proceedings under section 153A, contending it was unlawful and without jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the assessment should be deemed unlawful and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances, noting that a search under section 132 was conducted, and the notice under section 153A was issued. The appellant disclosed the same income in response to the notice as in the original return. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contention, upholding the jurisdiction of the proceedings initiated under section 153A.

Addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer added a sum to the appellant's income based on entries in the bank account of an employee of a firm where the appellant was a partner. The Tribunal observed various credit entries and cash deposits in the employee's account, culminating in a significant cheque issued to the appellant. The employee claimed the amounts were from a land sale but failed to provide evidence. The Tribunal criticized the lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer regarding the alleged sum being credited to the appellant's bank account, a crucial condition for making additions under section 68. It was noted that the cash was deposited in the employee's account, suggesting any addition should have been made in his hands first. The Tribunal found the revenue authorities' inquiry lacking and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal against the addition of undisclosed income.

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The appellant contested the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, claiming it was unlawful. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments of both parties, did not provide detailed analysis or findings regarding the interest levy in the judgment. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's arguments challenging the interest levy, as the judgment did not specifically address this issue. The focus of the judgment primarily revolved around the addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer and the jurisdiction of proceedings under section 153A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the addition of undisclosed income made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of direct material against the appellant and the deficiencies in the revenue authorities' inquiry. The judgment did not provide detailed analysis on the interest levy issue, indicating that the Tribunal did not find grounds to cancel the interest imposed.