2016 (5) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - addition made in the hands of assessee in respect of cash and stock of wine - Held that - Under the provisions of the Act itself it is provided that where the assessee has failed to furnish return of income for any of the assessment years then the Assessing Officer as per reasons recorded in this behalf can initiate proceedings of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly we find no merit in the claim of assessee in this regard and the same is dismissed. The claim of assessee before the Assessing Officer was that it had received sum of Rs. 4, 43, 000/- on account of sale of truck / mini bus and in respect of balance it claimed that it was cultivating the land of two different persons and receiving agricultural income. However the assessee failed to establish its claim with any evidence. The statements of persons were recorded which were at variance with the claim of assessee. Further the assessee could not produce any proper evidence of leasing out of the agricultural land by the owners of land and in the absence of same the claim of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Similarly with regard to sale of equipment the assessee failed to furnish complete evidence and the said claim was also not accepted. The assessee had fabricated various documents produced before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claims to have accumulated cash from sale of agricultural produce as back as 11.05.2009 (Rs.1, 97, 829/-) 20.04.2009 (Rs.1, 25, 000/-) 21.04.2009 (Rs.75, 000/-) and 01.11.2009 (Rs.1, 32, 300/-). Similarly the assessee claims to have received loan of Rs. 2 lakhs on 06.02.2009 and Rs. 2, 43, 000/- on 23.11.2009 and keeping in view of his social status and financial position of the assessee the CIT(A) was of the view that it was highly improbable that the assessee would keep the said cash. Further in the statement recorded before the Police Department on 24.11.2009 the assessee had not explained the source of cash out of agricultural income and loans / advances. The CIT(A) has held that the cash was out of sale of liquor and has confirmed the addition in the hands of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of authorities below and in the absence of any explanation furnished in this regard or any evidence to prove its stand we find no merit in the claim of assessee - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of seized cash and stock under section 147 of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of notice under section 148:
The appeal challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, questioning the jurisdiction of the reassessment under section 147. The appellant argued that the notice was without jurisdiction and should be quashed. The appellant contended that the proper statutory procedures were not followed, rendering the assessment illegal. The appellant insisted that sections 153A and 153C should have been invoked due to the involvement of the police department in seizing the cash. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the reassessment under section 147 based on the information received regarding the seized cash and stock.

Issue 2: Addition of seized cash and stock under section 147:
The Assessing Officer made additions to the appellant's income on account of seized cash and stock found during a police raid. The appellant claimed the cash was from agricultural income and loans, but failed to provide concrete evidence to support this claim. The appellant's explanations regarding the sources of income were rejected by the Assessing Officer, who found discrepancies and lack of evidence in the appellant's statements and documents. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, noting that the appellant had fabricated documents and failed to substantiate the sources of income claimed. The CIT(A) concluded that the cash was from the unauthorized sale of liquor and confirmed the additions in the appellant's income.

In summary, the ITAT Pune dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and confirming the additions made on account of seized cash and stock under section 147. The tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.