Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Income TaxAssessment on the basis of sworn statement given u/s 132(4) - Held that:- No substance in this contention. We have already noticed that the fact of providing accommodation bills came to light due to survey operations conducted at the premises of M/s Akruti Metals and Alloys Pvt Ltd. The statement taken from the director of the above said company was confirmed by the assessee in the statement taken from him u/s 132(4) of the Act as well as u/s 131 of the Act. It appears that the fact relating to accommodation bills also came to light during the course of search operations conducted in the case of M/s ABG Shipyard Ltd. Since the director of M/s Akruti Metals and Alloys Pvt Ltd had implicated the assessee and since the assessee has also accepted the same, in our view, the assessing officer was justified in placing reliance on the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act. - Decided against assessee. Non incriminating material find during search - Held that:- In the instant cases, the assessee has not filed return of income prior to the date of search and hence the returns of income filed in response to the notices issued u/s 153A become the original returns of income for all the years under consideration. Consequently the impugned assessments are to be considered as original assessments in the hands of the assessee. The assessing officer is entitled to examine all the issues, since these assessments shall not fall in the category of “concluded assessments” in the absence of original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, we reject this ground also.- Decided against assessee. Column no.7 of notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the Act was left blank and hence the said notice was invalid - Held that:- The clerical errors would not vitiate the assessment orders and accordingly, we reject this ground also.- Decided against assessee. Additions made on account of low withdrawals made for household expenses - Held that:- assessing officer has simply estimated the household expenses without bringing any other material on record. The submission of the assessee is that he was maintaining a simple life and further the money withdrawn from his wife’s account was also used towards household expenses. Admittedly, the assessing officer did not consider the drawings made from the account of assessee’s wife. Since the assessing officer has not brought any material to support the estimate made by him, in our view, the same should be considered to be baseless and hence the same cannot be sustained. At the same time, the assessee also could not convincingly explain that the drawings disclosed by him along with the drawings taken from his wife’s account were sufficient to meet the expenses. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this issue would meet the ends of justice in all the years under consideration, if the addition towards insufficient drawings is sustained to the extent as mentioned in order to take care of possible leakage, if any. Unexplained investments - Held that:- assessing officer should either accept or reject the financial statements in toto and partial reliance on them is not justified. The additions may be made out of the said financial statements, if the assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee with regard to any of the items disclosed therein. Since the items assessed as “unexplained investments” in all the years under consideration has been duly disclosed in the financial statements and the sources thereof were also explained therein, we are of the view that the impugned additions are not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the years under consideration and direct the assessing officer to delete the additions made under the head “Unexplained investments” representing Life insurance scheme payments, PPF payments, Loans and Shares. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credits - Held that:- hile the assessee claims that the assessee did furnish the confirmation letter, the tax authorities state that the same was not furnished. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited our attention to the confirmation letter furnished in the paper book. Accordingly he contended that the observations made by the tax authorities are against the facts prevailing on record. Since the confirmation letter furnished by the assessee was omitted to be examined by the tax authorities, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Estimation of commission income on providing accommodation bills - Held that:- A question may arise as to whether the deduction directed to be given in the preceding paragraph is valid, since the resultant assessed income of AY 2010-11 would become lower than the income returned by the assessee. The fact remains that the assessee did not visualise the addition relating to Commission income at the time of filing returns of income of the years under consideration and hence there was no occasion for him to claim deduction of the commission income. Since the commission income has been estimated by the tax authorities as well as by us, the aggregate amount of net commission income finally assessed should be given deduction in order to arrive at completeness. Addition of balance value of Jewellery/cash found at the time of search over and above that surrendered by the assessee - Held that:- Though the entire value of jewellery has been assessed in AY 2010-11 in accordance with the provisions of the Act, however in practice, the jewellery is accumulated over the years. It is known to everyone that the rate of gold is rising consistently over the years. However, the value of jewellery has been assessed in AY 2010-11 by taking the rate prevailing in that year. Further, the Indian families normally own certain quantity of jewellery over the years. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that there is no justification in assessing the balance value of jewellery amounting to ₹ 10,29,020/-. With regard to the cash also, the assessing officer has not given credit for book balance. Considering the smallness of the amount, we are of the view that the addition of ₹ 30,200/- is also not warranted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on these two issues and direct the assessing officer to delete these additions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|