Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 22 - AT - Income TaxIssues: 1. Validity of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act and assessment under sections 153C/143(3) of the Act. 2. Validity of assessment order due to lack of valid approval under section 153D of the Act. 3. Addition of alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Levying of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act. Analysis: 1. Validity of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act and assessment under sections 153C/143(3) of the Act: The appellant challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act, contending that the statutory preconditions were not satisfied as no items belonging to the appellant were seized during the search. The appellant argued that the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal and unsustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh clarified that the date of search in the case of the other person determines the date of search in the appellant's case. As the impugned assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was beyond the block of six A.Ys, starting from A.Y. 2015-16, the assessment order was deemed invalid. Therefore, the appeal on this ground was allowed. 2. Validity of assessment order due to lack of valid approval under section 153D of the Act: The appellant raised the issue of the assessment order being invalid due to the absence of valid approval under section 153D of the Act. However, the primary focus of the judgment was on the lack of jurisdiction under section 153C, which rendered the assessment order invalid. As a result, the assessment order was quashed based on the jurisdictional issue, and the validity of approval under section 153D was not specifically addressed. 3. Addition of alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act: The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000 as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The appellant argued that the addition was misconceived, arbitrary, and unsustainable, as the seized document was a cancelled copy of a collaboration agreement. The appellant and the other party to the agreement both denied any cash payment or receipt under the agreement. The burden of proof under section 69 of the Act was emphasized to be on the revenue, which was not discharged in the appellant's case. However, due to the jurisdictional issue leading to the quashing of the assessment order, the merits of this addition were not extensively discussed in the judgment. 4. Levying of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act: The appellant challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act, arguing that they were not applicable in the appellant's case. However, since the primary issue of lack of jurisdiction under section 153C led to the quashing of the assessment order, the discussion on the interest levied was brief. The judgment did not delve deeply into the specifics of the interest levied, as the focus was on the jurisdictional aspect. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order primarily due to the lack of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. The judgment highlighted the significance of the date of search in determining the validity of the assessment order and emphasized the importance of statutory preconditions for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C. The other issues raised by the appellant, such as the addition of unexplained money and the levying of interest, were not extensively discussed due to the jurisdictional grounds leading to the appeal's success.
|