TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er reached conclusion that there is escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. It is well settled that at the time of issuing Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is only required to reach a tentative or prima facie belief regarding escapement of income and that requirement is satisfied in the present case. The argument advanced by the assessee's counsel is that the name of the assessee is not specifically mentioned in the seized document seized during the search action and also date of payment is not mentioned therein and who has paid has also not mentioned, therefore, material gathered by the Investigation Wing cannot be the information for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. In our opinion the recorded reasons for reopening of assessment have nexus with the formation of A.O. belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The required nexus also can be established by the statement of searched party recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Being so, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer righly reopened the assessment for these assessment years and the ground relating to reopening of assessment in these two assessment years under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 2011-12. The grounds in these appeals are common in nature, only change in figures, hence these appeals are heard together for the sake of convenience and common order is passed. 2. The first ground in this appeal is with regard to reopening of the assessment on the reason that the conditions precedent for reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 does not exist. Thus the assessment to be quashed. 3. The next ground in this appeal is with regard to addition made on account of receipt of money from RNS Infrastructure Limited is bad in law since the Assessing Officer has not provided an opportunity to rebut the alleged retrieved data which has used against the assessee. 4. The third ground is that the CIT (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition on the reason that the assessee has not received any money during the Assessment Year 2009-10 at ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 49 lakhs during the Assessment Year 2011-12. 5. The last ground is with regard to levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from partnership firm and other sources. In the Assessment Year 2009-10the assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 49 lakhs in the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer on this issue, made respective additions in these assessment years under the head income from other sources. Against the reopening of assessment and also on making addition by the Assessing Officer, the assessee challenged before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals), both on reopening of assessment and addition made on merit sustained the findings of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue for our consideration is with regard to reopening of assessment. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the reasons recorded does not show that income has escaped from assessment in the assessment years under consideration. The seized material relied on by the ld. AR for reopening of assessment does not show that any chargeable income to tax had escaped assessment and there is no nexus with the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer. He drew our attention to the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment which show that there was a payment of ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 49 lakhs to the present assessee in the Assessment Year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs are in the hand writing of the Vice President (Finance) of RNSIL. The evidence has been retrieved in a fool proof manner using the specialized forensic software ENCASE with MD5 hash value. The seized documents revealed that all such illegal payments were took under the head Sundry in the accounts of RNSIL and it is a sister concern. However, when accounts are finalized for various strategic purposes, the expenses made under the head Sundry were not made part of the accounts. Thus from the seized documents from RNSIL, it was found that there was payment of ₹ 10 lakhs in the Assessment Year 2009-10 and ₹ 49 lakhs in the Assessment Year 2011-12 to the assessee on hand. These informations were passed on by DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Bangalore to the Assessing Officer of the present assessee. On the basis of information gathered from DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Bangalore, the Assessing Officer of the present assessee issued Notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the present as on 13.3.2015. As discussed earlier, there is a search in the case of RNSIL u/s. 132 of the Act and unearthing of incriminating material on 16.2.2012 on the basis of information supplied by the DCIT, Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance) of RNSIL. However the assessee filed a letter before the lower authorities from RNSIL sent by Managing Director which states as follows : According to the ld.AR the unsigned diary jottings have no evidential value when there is actually letter issued by the Managing Director stating that there was no payment to the assessee from F.Y. 2008-09 to F.Y. 2010-11. The statement made by the M.D. in his above letter has to be considered and addition to be deleted. Further the assessee's counsel submitted that the lower authorities have ignored the above letter furnished by the assessee and made additions. He submitted that there is no illegal payment by RNSIL to the assessee and uncorroborated diary jottings cannot be considered for addition. 12. The ld. DR submitted that there is an evidence found and seized in the course of search action in the case of RNSIL on 16.02.2012 which was independent evidence conclusively established that the impugned payments are made to the assessee by RNSIL. The crucial evidence i.e. digital evidence found and seized during the search from Corporate Office on 16.02.2012, was authenticated by forensic lab report of an independent forensic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012500 Total 1,42,40,800 In the wake of the proceedings initiated under section 153A, M/s. RNS Infrastructure Ltd. approached the Settlement Commission and offered additional income for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 amounting to ₹ 16,80,07,102/-. The Company submitted that it had been incurring certain expenditures in the ordinary course of business for which proper vouchers could not be obtained and for these purposes the additional income offered was utilized. The entire gamut of evidence relating to the sundry payments seized in course of the search and the explanations offered by the Company were thoroughly examined by the Hon ble Settlement Commission, after which the Commission upheld the evidentiary value of these seized documents. According to the ld. DR, in view of the findings of the Settlement Commission, the additions are to be sustained. 13. We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. In the present case, the addition is based on the diary jottings found during the course of search action in the case of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
