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 2243 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment proceedings - Addition u/s.69A - Held that:- There is no satisfaction of the AO that income has escaped assessment. Further, for the said ₹ 1 crore notice u/s.148 has been issued for A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2006-07. Therefore, the AO is not sure for which assessment year the money has been deployed. Further, he is not saying that this is an income. Therefore, assumption of jurisdiction u/s.148 of the I.T. Act is not warranted. See CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 102 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the instant case the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 on the ground that the documents seized during the search action by the income-tax department of Shri Sohanraj Mehta, C&F Agent of RMD Group indicate receipt of an amount of ₹ 1 crore by the assessee out of the unaccounted sale proceeds. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the AO made addition u/s.69A in the hands of the assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) while upholding the addition of ₹ 1 crore u/s.69A of the I.T. Act in principle, directed the AO to assess the same in A.Y. 2005-06 since the seized documents show that the amount has been paid to the assessee on 09-07-2004. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vinit Ranawat Vs. ACIT vide [2015 (6) TMI 608 - ITAT PUNE] wherein additions were made on the basis of seized documents found from the residence of Shri Sohanraj Mehta, C&F Agent of RMD Gutkha Group during the course of search and after considering the various submissions made by both the sides, the Tribunal deleted the addition concluding that the presumption u/s 132(4A) is available only in respect of the person from whom the paper is seized. It could not be applied against a third party and hence, no addition could be made on the basis of the evidence found with third party - Decided in favour of assessee. Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- We find in the instant case the AO did not make any addition in the hands of the assessee in the impugned assessment year holding that he has already made the addition of ₹ 1 crore in A.Y. 2004-05. This was done by the AO despite the fact brought before him that the seized documents relates to A.Y. 2005-06 and not A.Y. 2004-05. Therefore, the AO in a clear application of mind and in a conscious manner made the addition in A.Y. 2004-05 and not in A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no application of mind. Since the amount has already been taxed in A.Y. 2004-05, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the revenue. In any case we have already held in the preceding paragraphs while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 that no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee on the basis of seized documents found during the course of search of Shri Sohanraj Mehta, C&F Agent of RMD Gutkha group either in A.Y. 2004-05 or A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, the order of the CIT invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 cannot be sustained even on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|