9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs..80,53,26,740/- being variation in additional income admitted by virtue of service tax refund brought to tax under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short], which was not at all obtained any benefit in respect of the service tax paid to attract the said provisions. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the group case of "Sugal and Damani" on 20.11.2014. As a part of the search operations, the business premises of the assessee company were also covered. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs..273,46,73,260/- and book profit as Rs..268,37,14,425 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any incriminating material impounded during the course of search operation, further addition towards service tax refund, which was not at all received in the relevant assessment year any addition over and above the admission of additional income admitted under section 132(4) is unwarranted and prayed for deleting the addition. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the course of post search investigation, Shri Naresh C. Mangal, the Director of the assessee company has submitted a letter in which the disclosed amount was bifurcated as Rs..200 crores in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores was admitted as additional income voluntarily expressing its inability to explain the issues that were raised in respect of accounting for of the returned or unsold paper lottery tickets and the recipients of the prize winning money in the online lottery. Thus, further investigation was thwarted and in the circumstances, it appears that the assessee has acted in with a preconceived plan to take the situation to its advantage. Further, Service Tax Refund of Rs..77.80 Crores whereas the variation in income admission is at Rs..80,53,26,740/- and the assesse has failed to explain reasons for this variation. Hence, by rejecting assessee's explanation the deficit amount of Rs..80,53,26,740/- not admitted during the course of search wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any part thereof is actually received by way of refund from the concerned authorities. In fact, it was the argument of the ld. Counsel that before completion of the assessment on 29.12.2017, the assessee has given an undertaking in the form of an affidavit dated 28.12.2017 to offer for taxation of the receipt of service tax refund as and when it was actually received. Moreover, despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered the judgement on 24.10.2013, the assessee could not get the refund till the date of passing assessment order or the Assessing Officer has not given any findings that the assessee has received the service tax refund. Further, the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything in the assessment order of receipt of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
