9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onse to notice u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), as income under the head "income from other sources". As the facts and circumstances in which this addition was made in these three appeals are similar and raises question with regard to scope of powers of an AO while framing assessment u/s.153A of the Act in respect of income which does not emanate from any material found in the course of search, we deem it appropriate to take up this issue for consideration for these three AYs together. 4. The Assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 as per the details given below: AY Date of filing of return of income (ROI) Due Date for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) Remarks 2009-10 6.7.2010 30.9.2011 No notice u/s. 143(2) issued. 2010-11 30.3.2011 30.9.2011 No notice u/s. 143(2) issued. 2011-12 4.7.2011 30.9.2012 No notice u/s. 143(2) issued. 5. There was a search and seizure operation conducted u/s/.132 of the Act in the case of the Assessee on 18.7.2013, as part of the search operations conducted in the case of M/s.Ananda Social & Educational Trust. The Assessee filed return of income for all the aforesaid three AYs in response to notice u/s.153A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Karnataka High Court and other High Courts were duly considered and there is no dispute on this aspect and the fact that the said decision is the law as of today on the subject rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. In this regard there is also no dispute that the assessment for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 have to be regarded as unabated assessments completed prior to search as the return filed by the Assessee has been accepted and no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act within the time limit laid down therein has been issued. It was thus contended by ld. counsel for the assessee that since pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee for the 3 assessment years, the acknowledgement has already been issued by the AO and since no further proceedings by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) within the time contemplated by law was issued, those assessments become final and can be disturbed only if incriminating material is found in the course of search. He highlighted the fact that both the additions made with regard to Agricultural income in all the three AYs have no relevance whatsoever to any material found in the course of search, which are alleged to be relating to the Assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd during the course of search, the additions are liable to be deleted. 11. In AY 2008-09 and 2013-14 also an addition by treating the income declared in the return of income filed u/s.153A of the Act as income from other sources was made by the AO and these additions in these two AYs will not fall within the ambit of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/S.Delhi International Airporat Ltd. (supra). As far as the addition made in these two Assessment years are concerned, the Agricultural income declared was a sum of Rs. 1,26,500 and Rs. 1,65,800/- respectively. The Assessee is aged 80 years and is residing with his daughter. The declaration of Agricultural income is not with a view to explain any source. Moreover the Agricultural holdings are not disputed. Absence of details of crops grown and evidence of sale of Agricultural produce in the form of bills can be a basis to doubt the quantum of Agricultural income but cannot be the basis the treat the entire Agricultural income as income from other sources, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee in this regard and delete the addition made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable and the same is directed to be deleted. 16. The other issue to be adjudicated in ITA No.684/Bang/2020 is ground No.3 which reads as follows: "3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act being the LIC Premium paid by the appellant's daughter Dr.M.K.Girija based on a receipt that was found and seized in course of search without appreciating that the said premium was not paid by the appellant especially since the premium related to the policy belonging to the appellant's daughter who is a Doctor and hence the addition made in the hands of the appellant is unjustified and ought to have been deleted." 17. This ground is similar to ground decided in the earlier paragraph with regard to contribution to LIC premium. For the reasons stated therein, the addition made by the AO confirmed by the CIT(A) is directed to be deleted. 18. In ITA No.685/Bang/2020, ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as follows: "3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 28,000/- made in the hands of the appellant as unexplained expenditure being the investment in NSC by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
