9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO is barred by limitation having been passed beyond the statutory period prescribed in the Act and hence liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the learned AO is bad in law as the same has been passed without application of his own mind. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO, despite the fact that the additions made by the AO are unsustainable in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 7. (i) On the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and accordingly, provisions of section 17(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly stated facts are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was conducted on Shri Mon Mohan Kohli group of assessees on 11.02.2014. The assessee was also covered in search operation. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The AO while framing the assessment made addition of Rs. 11,77,102/- being the amount deposited in the foreign bank account. Further, the AO made addition on account of perquisite of Rs. 5,17,508/-, the amount paid by M/s Travancore Management Resources Pvt. Ltd. Thus, against the returned income of Rs. 27,80,310/- the AO assessed income at Rs. 44,74,920/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Ved Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that authorities below are not justified in making the addition and sustaining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments forming basis of additions of foreign bank account. Also, information in the remand report is incomplete and incorrect. The assessee also submitted that the assessee had made complaint to Enforcement Directorate on 21.05.2012 much before conducting of search and seizure on 11.02.2014. The assessee also submitted that she was made cosignatory with no authority to operate or withdraw any funds. However in the remand report her statement was twisted and amended as "she was made cosignatory with an authority to operate or withdraw any funds." Also, the appraisal note enclosed to remand report was incomplete. 10. Further, another submission dated 25.09.2018 (PB pg. 59-62) was made by the assessee stating that There was a contradiction in the statements of Ld. AO. On one hand, Ld. AO said that it was during search operations that the information regarding foreign bank account was revealed and on the other hand it is said that communication in this regard was received from Foreign FIU. Also, the communication so received has nowhere mentioned the name of the assessee. Also in the remand report, para 3.1.4, it was mentioned that SCTGL wished to move/close the Five seasons L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77,102/- made by the AO. 15. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the information regarding undisclosed foreign assets came to the notice of the AO under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 in the month of October, 2017 and subsequently proceedings were initiated under the said Act and an order u/s 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 was passed on 25.03.2022 for AY 2018-19 wherein it was held that "the various foreign assets forming the basis of issue of the notice u/s 10(1) dated 27.06.2018 in the case of the assessee are actually not held by the assessee as the beneficial owner but are apparently held by Sh. Mon Mohan Kohli as the beneficial owner whose case proceedings are ongoing u/s 10(1)..." It was also held that "no addition is being made so far as the assessee Ms. Natasha Kohli is concerned A copy of such order is placed at PB Pg. 144-154. 17. Thus, when it has been already held by the AO under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe from the record that a search and seizure operation under section 132 (1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee and his related entities. Accordingly notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and served on the assessee and in response assessee filed his return of income. We observe from the record that the addition was made by the assessing officer during this assessment year pertains to a bank account in HSBC, Geneva. The relevant information on the bank account was not found during search proceedings nor found in the possession of the assessee. However, during search proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the Base Note which the Income Tax Department obtained under exchange of information between French government and Indian government under the provisions of DTAA. The investigation wing and the assessing officer heavily relied on the information contained in the Base Note which they have confronted with the expectation that assessee will accept the information contained in the Base Note. However, the assessee has denied the ownership of any bank account opened in the HSBC Bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT-Dated.- August 28, 2015 37 vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concem AYS, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07. On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. 19. Thus, in light of the above facts, submissions and explanations of the assessee, the addition amounting to Rs. 11,77,102/- made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not tenable and is liable to be deleted. Addition of Rs. 5,17,508/- alleged as perquisite u/s 17(2)(iv) 1. During the year under consideration, payments towards assessee's credit card bills have been done through assessee's own bank account, and from the accounts of M/s Travancore Management R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. has also been accepted by the same jurisdictional office. Expenses have not been questioned by the AO in the case of M/s Travancore Management Resources Pvt. Ltd. No objection or observations have been pointed out in the ledger account of credit card in the books of the M/s Travancore Management Resources Pvt. Ltd. 7. Thus it is clear that the expenses have been incurred for the purposes of business only. Though the credit card was in the name of the assessee but the expenses which were paid for by the company were incurred in the interest of the company only. A summary of nature of expenses incurred and borne by the company is appended below: AEBC Card No. 376916899906005 55024.57 Boarding & Lodging 29500.3 Business Promotion 25524.27 AEBC Card No. 37693993143005 207955.85 Boarding & Lodging 127568.56 Business Promotion 31006.93 Purchase trading without form C 23872 Repair & Maintenance-Computer 6349 Staff Welfare 19159.36 Citi Bank Card No. 5241330520076364 97874.6 Office Exp 28000 Printing and stationery 29872 Purchase Hardware Central Without Form C 3399 Purchase trading without form C 30900 Repair & Maintenance-Computer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. In the present cases, the Revenue failed to establish that there is actually on-money passed on to the seller and also there is no evidence to show that there is understatement of sale consideration in the document. If the Revenue is able to produce evidence to show that there is understatement of sale consideration in the document, the Revenue may be right in inferring that on-money has been passed on to the seller. It would be otherwise harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him. It amounts to tax on notional or fictional income. Hence, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Hence, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this court and accordingly, the tax cases are dismissed." 2017 (8) TMI 943-ITAT DELHI, M/s E-Smart Systems Private Limited Versus ITO Ward - 8 (3), New Delhi "Lastly, it was submitted that while making the impugned addition, AO/CIT(A) did not bring any evidence to rebut the evidences furnished by the assessee and made the addition on suspicion and speculations. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was dispute between wife and husband and the assessee was disowned from being beneficiary in all assets of her husband. It is also the stand of the assessee that she had never made any transaction into such account and she had made complaint to Enforcement Directorate on 21.05.2012 much before conducting of search and seizure on 11.02.2014 regarding no connection with the disputed foreign bank account. Therefore, to verify the veracity of assessee's claim, in order to subserve the ends of natural justice and to be fair to both the parties, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO would verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the account in question was never operated and no transaction was made by the assessee and that the account was being managed and operated by the husband of the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Apropos to the addition of Rs. 5,17,508/-, facts in brief are that during assessment proceedings the AO observed that payments for assessee's credit card bills had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
