9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the seized material , which had attained finality, then , it can not plead that the addition made based on the other part of the seized material, which were unearthed in the same search and seizure operations, would not fall as an undisclosed income within the scope of Section 158 BA. With regard to the genuineness of the transaction with M/s. J S Agency, as pleaded by the ld. Sr. Standing counsel, supra, the AO after due consideration of the seized material, the statements recorded at the time of search, the statement recorded from the parties subsequently and on due analysis of the additional evidence produced by the assessee has clearly recorded the reason as to why such claim cannot be accepted and how the assessee has failed to prove that the impugned payment was made to Mr.Selvam and Mr. Inbaraj. It is clear from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not laid any material assailing the findings recorded by the AO and hence, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the impugned additions. Before us also, the assessee has not filed any material assailing the findings recorded by the lower authorities. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that they have received the payment and have done work for the assessee company individually. The total payments made to them are ₹ 1,00,12,023. However, the Assessing Officer contended that, since some of the vouchers of J.S. Agency was signed by Mr. Slevam and Inbaraj the transaction has to be viewed as one. The Assessing Officer on his own has restricted the expenses (putting all the three to together) only to the extent of the part bills raised by J.S. Agency amounting to ₹ 64,83,831/- and has added the balance ₹ 35,28,192/- as undisclosed income. The ld.AR pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO without appreciating the fact and the law that the disallowance of expenses cannot be treated as assessment of an undisclosed income within the scope of Section 158 BA, and in this regard relied on the case laws CIT vs. Ravikanth Jain 250 ITR 141, D.A. Patel Vs. DCIT 72 ITD 340, Esteem Intra Part Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.ACIT 72 ITD 228, Chander Mohan Metha Vs. DCIT 65 TTJ 327, Sundar Agencies Vs. DCIT 63 ITD 245 and Smt. Sheela Agarwal Vs. DCIT 106 Taxman 227. Therefore, it was prayed that the assessment should be set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inbaraj 29,20,000 31,72,440 31,51,940 12,01,874 99,33,481 1,00,12,023 67,03,445 45,23,801 During the search, it was noticed that the vouchers in the name of the following persons were not signed. Inbaraj ₹ 31,72,440/- Selvam ₹ 33,25,875/- 4.1 When the assessee was asked to explain, the director of the assessee, Mr. Mohan in his sworn deposition, at the time of search operations on 22.3.2000, deposed that these expenses were debited in the company accounts, drawn by cash and such cash withdrawals were taken by him to make some other payments. The assessee has claimed ₹ 34,57,206/-as an expenditure in the name of J. S. Agency in the books of account. On the same date, the proprietor of M/s J.S. Age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made to Selvam and Inbaraj at Rs ₹ 45,23,801 . The oral evidence adduced by these parties has been varied subsequently. Hence,the AO held that credence could be given to the extent that they are corroborated by other evidence unearthed at the time of search operations etc. Thereafter, the AO evaluated the contemporaneous evidences in the form of bills, raised to the tune of ₹ 64,83,831, and found that they borne the stamp of TCV Engineering Ltd with the note that the bill has been passed and they were with the signature of the site engineerand hence concluded that all of them render credence to such bills, the statement of Mr. Jayaseelan and Mr. Inbaraj also corroborated such conclusion and these bills also shown that the statement of Mr. Selvam is not reliable. Therefore, out of the claim of payment of ₹ 1,00,12,023,the AO inferred that only ₹ 64,83,831 was paid and the balance sum of ₹ 35,28,192was an inflation of expenditure, whichhe disallowed and assessed as an undisclosed income of the assessee for the A.Y 97-98. Aggrieved , the assessee filed an appeal and the ld CIT(A) held that even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, where such thing, entry in the books of account or other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false . Therefore, the assessee s plea that the impugned transactions cannot fall under undisclosed income U/s.158BA is not tenable. Since the assessee has not proved that the impugned payments were genuine payments, the disallowance made is justified and hence the ld. Sr. standing counsel pleaded to dismiss the assessee s appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. It is clear from the above, that during the search and seizure operations, certain cash vouchers for expenses were found and seized which did not bear the signature of the payee. When they were shown to the Director of the assesse company, Mr Mohan, and questioned about their genuineness, he deposed on 22.3.2000 that the expenses relating to these vouchers were debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts, the case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of this case. With regard to the genuineness of the transaction with M/s. J S Agency, as pleaded by the ld. Sr. Standing counsel, supra, the AO after due consideration of the seized material, the statements recorded at the time of search, the statement recorded from the parties subsequently and on due analysis of the additional evidence produced by the assessee has clearly recorded the reason as to why such claim cannot be accepted and how the assessee has failed to prove that the impugned payment was made to Mr.Selvam and Mr. Inbaraj. It is clear from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not laid any material assailing the findings recorded by the ld.AO and hence, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the impugned additions. Before us also, the assessee has not filed any material assailing the findings recorded by the lower authorities. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities on the quantum. Therefore, the assessee s contention that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO cannot be treated as an assessment of an undisclosed income within the scope of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
