Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 937 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act – Held that:- CIT(A)’s view that in cases assessment u/s. 153A can be made without finding any seized material is not sustainable - it is not denied that it was a valid search and material was found from the premises which also houses of the group companies in which the assessee is also a Director – Relying upon CIT vs. SM Aggarwal [2007 (3) TMI 226 - DELHI High Court] it cannot be said that AO has assumed jurisdiction without any material found during search - Whether addition on the basis of the said material is sustainable or not is a matter which has to be considered subsequently after the assumption of jurisdiction - the contention of the assessee that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153A was not proper cannot be accepted - the material was found from the premises which also belonged to the assessee group company – thus, the jurisdiction of assessment u/s. 153A was valid – Decided against Assessee. Failure in rebuttal of legal presumption u/s 132(4)/292C of the Act – Held that:- The seized material in the shape of diary did not belong to the assessee - It belonged to the assessee’s brother - He has not at all been confronted with the contents of the diary - Assessee cannot be called upon to explain the contents of diary which belonged to the assessee’s brother and was found from the brother. There is no mention of the assessee’s name in the particulars of diary - Though there is mention of the farm house belonging to the assessee, there is no mention of the total price paid etc. - the seller has denied having taken any money over and above the disclosed sale consideration - Even the total price paid for the property is not mentioned in the seized material - The jottings in the diary by no stretch of imagination can be treated as conclusive proof of on money transactions by the assessee - It is not the case that the circle rate or the value as per stamp registration authorities of the impugned property is more than what has been disclosed - Relying upon CIT vs. Kalyansundaram [2007 (9) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - there is no case that any part of the jottings in the diary has been corroborated from any other findings - presumption u/s 132(4A)/292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee – the addition of on money transaction is not sustainable – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|