2022 (6) TMI 69 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - year of search conducted - Whether jurisdiction under section 153C and the procedure thereof as per the assessee has not been followed? - HELD THAT - We note that this assessment order passed by the assessing officer is under section 143(3) - The search was conducted on 09.10.2013. The assessment year in this case is 2014-15 and the previous year being 2013-14. Hence the search was conducted during the financial year itself. In this view of the matter, the provisions of section 153C are not at all attracted. The issue raised by the assessee is totally misplaced and not at all applicable in this case. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the provisions of section 153C which provide that assessment under this section shall be done for 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the assessment year in which search is conducted. Hence, the present assessment year is relating to the year of search and hence, assessment procedure for section 153C is not at all applicable. Moreover the provisions of these sections provide that pending assessments shall abate. In this case, since the financial year was itself not over there is no question of assessee having filed a return and assessment proceedings being abated. In this view of the matter, the additional ground raised by the assessee is frivolous without any legal basis and hence the same is dismissed. Unexplained cash found in search - Addition has been made on the basis of seizure of cash at the residence of the assessee and the assessee s submission is that the same belongs to company is totally self-serving statement de hors any cogent evidence. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the Revenue authorities in this regard. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 153A
2. Addition of Rs.44,00,000/- based on contradictions in explanations
3. Additional grounds challenging jurisdiction under section 153C and assessment procedure

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 153A
The appellant contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal regarding the validity of the assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 153A. The appellant argued that the Panchnama was not drawn in their name during the proceedings. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this ground, stating it was general in nature. The appellant raised concerns about the assessment process, but the tribunal did not find merit in these arguments.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs.44,00,000/- based on contradictions in explanations
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs.44,00,000/- made by the ld. AO, citing contradictions in explanations provided by the appellant and their wife during the search and seizure operation. The appellant claimed that the cash belonged to the company and was brought home for safekeeping. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The tribunal affirmed this decision, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence and the self-serving nature of the appellant's statements.

Issue 3: Additional grounds challenging jurisdiction under section 153C and assessment procedure
The appellant raised additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction under section 153C and the assessment procedure followed. The tribunal clarified that the provisions of section 153C were not applicable in this case as the search was conducted during the same financial year as the assessment year. Therefore, the additional grounds raised by the appellant were deemed frivolous and dismissed. The tribunal emphasized the lack of legal basis for the appellant's arguments and upheld the decision of the Revenue authorities.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition of Rs.44,00,000/- and rejecting the challenges to the validity of the assessment order and jurisdiction under section 153C. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and affirmed the decisions of the Revenue authorities.

← Previous Next →