9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions without giving proper opportunity which is against principle of natural justice. 4. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing." Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 143(3) dt.23-12-16 & notice issued u/s 143(2) dt.24-9-15 by ld AO, (i.e., ITO-4(1), Raipur) is invalid, bad in law, since, ld AO was not having valid jurisdiction u/s. 124(1) rws.2(7A) to assess the assessee-Co for AY14-15, when the 'case' has been transferred from ITO-4(1), Kolkata to ITO-1(1), Raipur on 14-10-14 in absence of order u/s 127 by the competent authority; assessment order passed would be invalid, bad in law and hence, is liable to be quashed for want of valid jurisdiction." 2. After arguing for some time, the Ld. AR has sought liberty not to press the additional aground of appeal. Considering the concession above of Ld. AR, the additional ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The directors of the assessee company had placed on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Haresh Kumar Advani, thereafter in the course of the assessment proceedings, had in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act once again confirmed that the disclosures in the course of survey proceedings were made voluntarily. Based on the facts above, the factual position to the contrary stated by the directors in their "affidavits" mentioned above cannot be accepted. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which trades in silver/gold jewellery and is a franchisee of M/s. Asmi Jewellery (Gitanjali Group Entity) had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 7. Survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act were conducted on the assessee company on 11.10.2023. No books of account were found in the course of the survey proceedings. Survey officials came across unexplained investment aggregating to Rs. 1.10 crore, as under: 1. Unexplained investment in stock: Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 2. Unexplained investment as franchisee fees :Rs. 3,00,000/- 3. Unexplained investment in furniture: Rs. 7,00,000/- Total : Rs. 1,10,00,000 Also, cash in hand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Haresh Kumar Advani is reproduced as under: (B) Smt. Tamanna Advani : 10. At the very outset, she had stated that an initial investment of Rs. 1.03 crore was made in the assessee company. It was stated by her that she had made an investment of Rs. 13 lacs towards the purchase of furniture of the assesse company. On being queried about the source of the initial investment, it was stated by her that she had made an initial investment of Rs. 13 lacs as capital. Apart from that, she stated that she had made a further investment of Rs. 7 lacs towards purchase of furniture of the assessee company. Accordingly, she admitted having invested Rs. 20 lacs with the assessee company. On being queried about the source of her investment of Rs. 20 lacs, she stated that the same was sourced out of speculation profit that was garnered over the year. As she could not substantiate the source of her investment based on documentary evidence, she admitted the same as her undisclosed income for the year under consideration. i.e. F.Y.2013-14. It was further stated by her that she would duly pay taxes on the aforesaid undisclosed income of Rs. 20 lacs (supra). For clarity, the relevant extract of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the sales returns, but the A.O did not find favor with the explanation above and made an addition of Rs. 9000/- to the assessee's returned income. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2016 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 1,10,09,000/-. 14. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. The CIT(Appeals), finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O, had upheld the same by observing as under: 15. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 16. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 17. Admittedly, it is a fact borne from the record that discrepancies of Rs. 1.10 crore (supra) were found in the survey proceedings conducted on 11.10.2013. As stated by the Ld. AR, assessee company had commenced its business only a few days back prior to the survey, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above, the said amount was offered by her as undisclosed income for the year under consideration, i.e., F.Y.2013-14, on which she had agreed to pay the corresponding amount of tax. 3. Smt. Mansi Advani (i) Rs. 20 lacs: In her statement recorded in the course of survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act, it was categorically stated by her that she had invested Rs. 20 lacs with the assessee company, which in turn, was sourced out of her past savings. As she could not substantiate her claim mentioned above, she offered the amount of Rs. 20 lacs as her undisclosed income for the year under consideration, i.e., F.Y.2013-14. She had further agreed to pay corresponding taxes on the same. 18. On a careful perusal of the statements of the directors of the assessee company, viz. Shri Haresh Kumar Advani, Smt. Tamanna Advani and Smt. Mansi Advani; and statement of Shri Haresh Kumar Advani recorded u/s. 131 of the Act by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings, it transpires that income of Rs. 1.10 crore (supra) was admitted by them as their respective undisclosed income (as culled out by us hereinabove). In sum and substance, the directors, as mentioned above, on being queried about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents mentioned above as having been sourced out of an unexplained source in the hands of the assessee company. 20. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1966) 218 ITR 239 (SC), the Income Tax Officer can and must tax the right person and the right person alone. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the "right person" means the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, concerning a particular income. It was further observed that the expression "wrong person" is used as the opposite of the expression "right person." Based on its observation above, the Hon'ble Apex Court had concluded that merely because a wrong person is taxed concerning a particular income, the A.O. is not precluded from taxing the right person concerning that income. 21. Based on the aforesaid settled position of law, we believe that now when the respective directors, viz. Shri Haresh Kumar Advani, Smt. Tamanna Advani and Smt. Mansi Advani had, in the course of survey proceedings, admitted their undisclosed income aggregating to Rs. 1.10 crore (supra), which had sourced the investment towards stock/franchisee fee/furniture of the assessee company; therefore, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
