9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d supra. 2. We shall first take up the appeal numbered as IT(SS)A 28/Coch/07, which is filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the revision order passed by the Administrative Commissioner. We have heard the parties in this regard and also perused the record. We notice that the Administrative Commissioner, in the revision order, has only directed the AO to examine the issues which were omitted to be examined in the original block assessment proceeding. 3. Before going into the merits of the issue, we would like to discuss about the legal position with regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of mind by the AO would render the assessment order to be erroneous.. In the instant case, the Ld CIT(A) has listed out the search materials, which have not been examined by the AO and which would have implication to the undisclosed income determined in the hands of the assessee. Thus, it is seen that the AO has failed to apply his mind on those materials and on account of that, the assessment order is rendered erroneous. Since the said issues involve huge tax effect, the assessment order is also rendered as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the revision order passed by Ld. Administrative Commissioner. 4. The Appeal numbered as IT (SS)A 01/C/2009 has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by Ld CIT(A) on the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) while giving effect to the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The revenue is challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld CIT(A) in admitting and adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee before him on the ground that the assessment order passed on the directions of the Administrative commission would fall outside the jurisdiction of Ld CIT(A). The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was being delivered from the office of the company to a person named Sri Anup Kumar Shah, who was staying in a hotel. The department seized a cash of Rs. 14,78,500/- from Shri Anup Kumar Shah referred above. In the search conducted in the office premises of the assessee, evidences depicting unrecorded payments made to the officials of "National High way Authority of India" (NHAI) were found. The assessee was executing projects of NHAI at the relevant point of time. The payments made to various persons in various years aggregated to Rs. 30,25,850/-. The AO treated the above said payments as well as the cash seized from Sri Anup Kumar Shah as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before Ld CIT(A), who deleted both the additions referred above. Hence the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue relates to the addition of Rs. 14,78,500/- relating to the cash seized by the department. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the same on the reasoning that the person from whom the cash was seized, i.e. Shri Anup Kumar Shah should have been considered as the owner of the cash as per the presumption provided u/s 132(4A) of the Act. 8. We have heard th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments have been made or authorised by the company. Thus, it is seen that the assessee did not explain the entries found in the incriminating documents except stating that they have not made such payments. In this kind of situation the presumption provided u/s 132(4A) comes into operation and we notice that the assessee has failed to rebut the presumption. The Ld Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no evidence to show that the amounts mentioned in the seized materials represent the "amount in lakhs". It is stated that the amounts were mentioned as under in the seized materials. G.M. 1.00 Managers (12 bills) 1.90 A/c section (12 bills) 0.30 The AO presumed that the amount mentioned above represent "amount in lakhs of rupees". Accordingly, the AO has taken "1.00" as "One lakh rupees". Considering the quantum of work undertaken by the company and the position of the officials mentioned above, in our view, it would be reasonable to presume that the amounts noted in the seized materials represent "amounts in lakhs". The assessee, having failed to rebut the presumption, in our view, the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 30,25,850/-. Accordingly, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
