TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the name of some persons - one of the noting is for an amount in the name of “Raji” - assessee cannot blow hot and cold at the same time - When the assessee accepts a part of the seized material by offering the amounts mentioned as his unexplained income, he cannot reject the interest on advance forming part of the same seized material - when the assessee accepts the advances mentioned in the seized material as his income, the interest calculated on the amount advanced as noted in the very same seized material certainly have to be considered to have been earned/received by the assessee – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against the assessee. - ITA Nos. 1731, 1732, 1733 & 1734/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri D. V. Anjaneyulu/ Smt. P. Pravallika For the Respondent : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram ORDER Per Bench: These four appeals, all by the assessee, are against a common order of CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad, dated 27/09/2013 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals are clubbed together and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily members have declared additional income of ₹ 338.24 lakhs with the understanding that any undisclosed income found at the time of assessment proceeding would be adjusted against the additional income offered. It was, therefore, pleaded that if at all the amount of ₹ 1,80,57,500/- is to be considered at his hands then it may be adjusted against the additional income offered of ₹ 338.24 lakhs. 6. The Assessing Officer rejected aforesaid submission of the assessee by observing that no staff would dare to record such transactions unless there is truth in them. The Assessing Officer also noted that the amount paid by the company can also be considered as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer added the amount of ₹ 1,87,56,000/-. 7. The assessee challenged the addition in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) finding no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee sustained addition of ₹ 1,80,56,000/- after giving credit to repayment of ₹ 7 lakhs by assessee with the following finding: 07.3.2 Before going into the merits of the case, I would like to draw attention to the provisions of the I.T. Act which empower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that income declared by each individual has to be considered in his hands and there is no such thing as group assessment. As per the provisions of Sec.153A, assessment has to be made in respect of each individual, in respect of each assessment year comprised within the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search and seizure operations were conducted. In the instant case, the department has found a document which shows t' it an amount of RS.l!80,56,OOO/-(net of credits of ₹ 7 lakhs) received by the appellant from M/s. Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospital and since the appellant did not declare the source of the amount, the addition by the Assessing Officer is justified. The contention that this undisclosed income detected in the FY 2006-07 should be adjusted against the disclosure made by another assessee, Sri B. Krishnaiah in the FY 2008-09 towards any discrepancies found during the assessment proceedings in the group concern is incorrect and against the provisions of the statute. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.l,80,56,000/- is confirmed. 8. The learned AR submitted before us that the document on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that these payments have not been reflected in the books of account of the company which obviously means, accepting for the time being that payments were made, the payments made by the company to the assessee were outside the books. Therefore, it is very much essential to know how these payments have been treated at the hands of the company. Neither the assessment order nor any other material brought on record could even remotely establish that payments to the extent indicated in the loose sheet were actually made to the assessee. It appears from the facts on record that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have conducted any enquiry to ascertain the real fact. In these circumstances, solely relying upon this single piece of paper addition cannot be made at the hands of the assessee considering the fact that there is serious doubt with regard to authenticity of notings made therein. As it appears, the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on presumption without making any enquiry to establish the fact that payments as per the impounded document was actually received by assessee. In the aforesaid circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not disclose, on the other hand, he rejects the noting on the reverse side of the same page i.e., page no.37 of the annexure A/BBR/RES/02 and says that the interest has not accrued to him and notional interest cannot be charged. The noting on page-37 indicates loan of ₹ 21 lakhs to Raji and on the reverse side the interest calculation till 13-5-2009 at ₹ 13.86 lakhs. It is not explained as to if the impugned seized document is a waste paper and has no evidentiary value as he claims, why he disclosed the amount of RS.32 lakhs appearing on one side of the paper. The Assessing Officer vas pointed out that the interest was calculated from the date of loan from September, 2006 to May, 2009 i.e., for 33 months at 2% per month and concluded that it works out to ₹ 13.86 lakhs. It is a well settled principle of law that the seized material has to be considered in totality and as such both receipts and expenses, as appearing in such seized material have to be considered to arrive at the true and real picture of the facts. You cannot own up one side of the seized paper and cannot disown the reverse side of it because it suits you. Therefore, the contention that interest d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to interest on advance of ₹ 21 lakhs, though the computation of interest is part of the same seized material, assessee disputes and denies the same and claims that he has not earned or received any interest. This claim of the assessee, in our view, is not acceptable. The assessee cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the assessee accepts a part of the seized material by offering the amounts mentioned therein as his unexplained income, he cannot reject the interest on advance forming part of the same seized material. So far as the decisions cited by learned AR, on carefully examining them, we are of the view that ratio laid down in these decisions will not apply to the facts of the present case. At the cost of repetition we would like to observe that when the assessee accepts the advances mentioned in the seized material as his income, the interest calculated on the amount advanced as noted in the very same seized material certainly have to be considered to have been earned/received by the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The ground raised is dismissed. 17. In the result, ITA No. 1731/Hyd/13 is partly allowed for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
