Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 476 - AT - Income TaxValidity of search warrant - Block Asstt. Order - whether there was no individual search warrant in the name of the appellant, no Block Asstt. Order could be passed in his case? - Held that:- We refer to provision of Section 292CC of the Act. We find that this section was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective from 01.04.1976. As per this Section, it is provided that notwithstanding that the authorization for search has been issued in joint names, assessment or reassessment shall be made separately in the names of each of the persons mentioned in such authorization. Hence, as per this retrospective amendment in the Income Tax Act, the issue in dispute in the present case has to be decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Addition relating to alleged commission/interest - Held that:- Even as per assessment order, only amount received is commission amount of 5% in respect of accommodation entries said to have been provided by family members of the assessee. It may be that the amount in fact was paid by the Bajaj Group to the assessee because the assessee was working with Bajaj Group and since the alleged accommodation entries are admittedly in the name of family members of the assessee, such commission income for providing accommodation entries in fact belongs to respective family members and such family member is already accounting for interest income in respect of the alleged accommodation entries and such interest income already taken into account by the family members is at the rate of 12% whereas the commission is said to have been received at the rate of 5% only. Under this factual position, we are of the considered opinion that separate addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged payment in respect of alleged accommodation entries is not justified because even if the loan provided by the family members of the assessee to Bajaj Group is not actual loan and is only accommodation entry then also, the commission on such accommodation entry belongs to the respective family member and that family member has already included in his income interest @ 12% and alleged commission payment of 5% is not in addition to interest of 12%. We, therefore, delete this addition in the present case - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition in respect of alleged Salary - Held that:- The assessee has received salary of ₹ 84,000/- for AY 2000-01 and ₹ 1,02,000/- for AY 2001-02. But in both these years, assessee has shown salary income of only ₹ 62,400/- per year. On this basis, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of the difference in salary income received by the assessee as per seized material and declared by the assessee in return of income of ₹ 21,600/- in AY 2000-01 and ₹ 39,600/- AY 2001-02. Ld. AR of the assessee could not controvert this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) by establishing that the amount of salary received by the assessee in these two assessment years as per seized material and as per return of income filed by the assessee for these two years is same. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee.
|