2016 (11) TMI 1741 - ITAT PUNE

Validity of assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material was found or not? - HELD THAT:- We find from the copy of the Panchnama that lot of loose papers marked as per Bundle No.1 were found from the premises of the assessee. Apart from the above a pendrive was also found. Therefore, it cannot be said that no incriminating documents were found during the course of search.

Assessee also could not justify that no incriminating documents were found. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Validity of the assessment order passed u/s.153A - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed return in response to notice u/s.153A . He has also given a finding that the order has been made prior to the end of 21 months period as envisaged in section 153(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. The assessee has failed to demonstrate during the appeal proceedings that the said assessment order has not been made prior to 30-12-2011. No concrete evidence in this regard was produced before the CIT(A) to justify that the despatch of the order have been made after 30-12-2011. Nothing was brought before us to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Under these circumstances we find no merit in the above ground raised by the assessee.

Undisclosed income of the assessee - unaccounted generation of cash - reliance on statement as recorded u/s. 132(4) of C&F Agent - element of threat or coercion while recording the statement u/s. 132(4) - as argued denial of principles of natural justice as the copy of the statement u/s.132(4) recorded of Shri Sohan Raj Mehta [ C&F agent] was not supplied to the assessee and opportunity to cross examine Shri Sohan Raj Mehta was also not given - HELD THAT:- No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of papers found in the premises of third party. Assessee being a small taxpayer, some evidence should have been found from the office or residence of the assessee to show that in fact he has received such huge amount. Similarly, the statement of Mr. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal [Company owner where Shri Sohan Raj Mehta, C&F agent employed] is contrary to the finding of the Department. It is also the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that different Benches of the Tribunal under identical facts and circumstances have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of notings found from the premises of Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta.

We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vinit Ranawat [2015 (6) TMI 608 - ITAT PUNE] as deleted the addition as held he search party during the course of search at the premises of the assessee has not found any evidence whatsoever to substantiate that the assessee has in fact received any amount either party. No unaccounted asset, investment or loose paper evidencing such huge receipt has been found - the query raised during the course of search that the authorised officer has treated the same as “short term advance” given to the assessee. Therefore, we find some force in the submission of assessee that if the amount is a short term advance the question of the same constituting income in the hands of the assessee does not arise. Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition made to income from house property - determining the annual value of Mahabaleshwar property - HELD THAT:- After claiming the statutory repairs u/s. 24 and municipal taxes he determined the Annual value of the Mahabaleshwar house property - We find the Ld.CIT(A) following his order for A.Y.2005-06 deleted the addition made by the AO and thereby allowed the ground raised by the assessee determining the annual value at Rs. 25,000/-. Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed his order for A.Y. 2005-06 on the very same property and since nothing contrary was brought to our notice against the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - project "Sai Trinity" - preconditions for claiming deduction under Industrial Park Scheme 2002 - assessee admitted to withdrawn the claim during search action - HELD THAT:- As considering the amendment of rule 18C of the Rules made w.e.f. 01.08.2008 where an undertaking begins to develop an Industrial Park is also eligible for the deduction so long as the development is otherwise complete within the period specified in the Scheme as well as it fulfills the conditions envisaged in the Scheme.

There is no justification for the denial of deduction nu/s 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act in the instant assessment year with regard to the profits earned by the assessee from Industrial Park - we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction made u/s 80IA(4)(iii).

Addition on account of cash seized from the appellant - AO had rejected the appellant’s sworn affidavit explaining the source and the evidence supporting withdrawal from his bank account summarily - CIT rejected the claim of the assessee trust on the ground that the same was an afterthought since no explanation was furnished during 132(4) statement - HELD THAT:- Nothing plausible was brought to our notice to substantiate with the source of Rs. 33 lakhs so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the CIT(A). The assessee in our opinion has miserably failed to substantiate with cogent evidence that the amount belong to the trust and the amount of Rs. 10,24,000/- drawn from the Cosmos bank account was available with him. Similarly, nothing was brought to our notice to substantiate the availability of Rs. 74,000/- with the assessee and his family members. We find the Ld.CIT(A) has given valid and cogent reasons while dismissing the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Under these circumstances and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in his order on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.