Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1800 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Held that:- The premises authorized in the warrant for search u/s 132 includes Mr. Jaswinder Singh Bajaj; Mr. Swaranjit Sijit Singh Bajaj and Punjab Sindh Dairy Products Pvt Ltd (the assessee here). Therefore, it is not correct to sate that Warrant of Authorization is not fault and faultily executed. It is an admitted position that mere failure of the Department to get the signature of the Directors on the warrant does not vitiate proceedings and make the search invalid and therefore, additions made in the assessment. Warrant is properly executed too. Considering the fact the warrant is properly authorized and the activities are done in accordance with the process of law, we find no mistake in the findings of the CIT (A) Invoking provisions of 145(3) - Held that:- Admittedly, this is the case where the books pertaining to the production, issuance, consumption are not maintained by the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the CIT (A) on this issue is fair and does not call for any interference. Addition on sale of milk - G.P. addition - Held that:- No sale of milk as evidenced by way of filing bills. The AO / CIT (A) have categorically stated that the assessee failed to submit the details in support of the sale of milk to the tune of 12,15,244/-. Thus, the said assessee‟s failure clubbed with the statements of the employees given on oath became relevant. The arguments relating to the retraction of the said statements by the employees are not sustainable considering the fact that the retraction was done in undated letters without giving sustainable reasons for such retraction. Therefore, in principle, the allegation of the Revenue on utilization of milk for making of the milk products by the assessee is sustainable. Accordingly, the sustenance of addition by the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. The allegation that the additions are made without any help of incriminating material is not sustainable considering the fact that there are multiple statements of the employees together with circumstantial evidences of no supporting registers showing the consumption details of milk constitutes incriminating information pertaining to the business affairs of the assessee in general and milk and dairy products in particular. Deduction u/s 80G denied - Held that:- Onus is on the assessee to submit the details and evidence before the AO before claiming any deduction. The appellant has failed to submit the receipt before the AO, therefore, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim Assessee appeal dismissed.
|