Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 70 - AT - Income TaxProceedings U/s.153A - Held that:- The addition in the case of the assessee can be made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. No doubt, before us learned DR has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Filatex India Ltd vs CIT (2014 (8) TMI 387 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as well as Canara Housing Development Company Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 642 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) in which it was held by the respective High Court held that the assessing authority shall determine the total income of the assessee taking into consideration the materials which was the subject-matter of earlier return and the undisclosed income unearthed during search and also any other income which comes to his notice. But when we have jurisdictional High Court decision, that will be binding before us and, thus, we are bound to follow the decision in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) as held If there is no incriminating material found during the search, then, the power under section 153A being not expected to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search reveals any incriminating material. Addition u/s. 68 relate to the cash deposited by the assessee in its bank accounts - Held that:- As these bank accounts were not found during the course of the search. Even the learned DR did not produce any material showing that these banks accounts were found during the course of search. In these circumstances, we are bound to delete the addition made u/s. 68 in each of the assessment years. Thus, ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal in each of the assessment yeas is allowed and we delete the additions made u/s. 68 of ₹ 5,85,600/- ₹ 4,31,800/-, ₹ 12,52,200/- ₹ 11,43,000/- and ₹ 2,73,850/- respectively. Addition u/s. 69C towards investment in the residential flat - Held that:- We noted that in this case, the assessee has made an investment of ₹ 61 lacs as has been disclosed by the assessee’s husband in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4). Out of the said sum of ₹ 61 lacs, ₹ 5 lacs has been paid by the assessee and ₹ 20 lacs has been paid by the assessee’s husband, which has been shown in his IT return copy of which has filed before us. For the balance amount of ₹ 36 lacs, the assessee has not proved any source. Therefore, we confirm the addition of ₹ 36 lacs as undisclosed investment u/s. 69C of the I.T Act. Thus, ground no.3 in A.Y. 2007-08 is partly allowed, thereby reducing the addition of ₹ 56 lacs to ₹ 36 lacs. Penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We noted that the penalty has been levied and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the additions in each of the assessment year. Since, we have deleted the additions in the preceding paragraphs while dealing with the quantum appeals, the penalty will also get deleted.
|