Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 420 - AT - Income TaxAssessment proceedings u/s. 153C - search & seizure operations - no search warrant in the name of M/s. Global Estate (appellant firm) has been served on it therefore assessment proceedings u/s 153A are without jurisdiction and illegal - Held that:- The provisions contained u/s 158BD are more or less similar to provisions contained in sec. 153C except “undisclosed income” which is mentioned in sec. 158BD, however, in sec. 153C, it is mentioned any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books accounts or documents seized or requisitions. The conditions precedent for invoking provisions u/s 158BD as decided in Manish Maheshwari case (2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) are therefore same as are provided u/s 153C. It is admitted fact that no search warrant was executed in the case of the present assessee u/s 132(1), therefore, provisions of sec. 153A were not applicable. The AO has, therefore, proceeded against the assessee u/s 153C. This view is further strengthened in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 770 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in which it was held that under section 153C notice can be issued only where the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuation article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong to such other person, whereas under section 158BD if the AO was satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or assets were requisitioned under section 132A, he could proceed against such other person under section 158BC. Considering the facts recorded the assessee in the present case had a case for quashing of proceedings u/s 153C. No material is produced to prove that the AO in the case of person searched was satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in sec. 153A. No material is produced to show if any satisfaction was recorded by the AO in that case that the seized material belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made u/s 132 - no satisfaction as required u/s 153C was recorded by the AO in the case of person searched - no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in quashing the proceedings u/s 153C. CIT(A) quashed the assessment order for want of issue of statutory notice u/s. 143(2) before completion of the assessment proceedings - Held that:- This issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Ashok Chaddha vs. ITO [2011 (7) TMI 252 - DELHI HIGH COURT] considering the decision of Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein held that No specific notice was required under section 143(2) of the Act when the notice in the present case as required under Section 153 (A) (1) (a) was already given - in favour of revenue. Addition on account of unexplained capital introduced in the assessee firm by the partners - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) found that both the partners, Smt. Honey Arora and Smt. Neeru Wadhwa introduced capital in the assessee firm and both are assessed to tax and have proved the fact of capital introduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the judgments of Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983 (2) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Sundar Lal Jain vs. CIT, [1978 (8) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] with Metachem Industries [1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] & DR has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, thus in view of the decision of jurisdictional High Court above, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be given preference - against revenue. Addition on account of concealed work in progress - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As found that the assessee maintained complete details of work in progress and that when the addition is made in assessment year under appeal, the benefit should have been given in the next assessment year 2004-05 which is not given in the case of the assessee. CIT(A) was satisfied with the complete details filed by the assessee and, therefore, held that the addition is made on surmises and presumption and cannot be sustained - against revenue. Addition on account of disallowance of 60% of expenses by rejecting book results u/s. 145(3) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As the assessee had made purchase of 90% through cheques which are reflected in the bank statement also and addition is made by relying upon the observations of ADIT(Inv.). The addition was accordingly deleted - against revenue. Addition on account of difference in market price and sale - Held that:- the land is owned by the Society, Sanatan Grah Nirman and the assessee only acted as construction agency and has not made any sales. Therefore, the addition is deleted - against revenue. Addition on account of current liabilities - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In assessment year under appeal, i.e., 2003-04, only Rs.30,000/- has been received in advance whereas full amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been received and credited during the assessment year 2004-05. The CIT(A) on examination of the documents accepted the contention of the assessee and deleted the addition - against revenue. Addition on account of unconfirmed unsecured loan - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee because the opening balance as on 01.04.2007 (PB-44) was Rs.5,56,880/-, which is closing balance of the last year. During the year under consideration, only quarterly interest of Rs.54,289/- was credited in the books of account along with confirmation. The addition was, accordingly, deleted - against revenue. Addition on account of unconfirmed advances - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Considering the explanation of the assessee in the light of material on record, it is clear that substantial amount was old balances and rest of the amounts were received through banking channel for booking of flats, which is also confirmed by the parties - against revenue.
|