Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 238 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s.153C - Whether there is no incriminating material found during the course of search? - commission income undisclosed and difference in the sundry creditors - HELD THAT:- Under the information regarding audit u/s.44AB of the Act in which he has mentioned the date of audit report as 10.09.2011. In the verification part of the return the date mentioned is 08.03.2012 and the acknowledgement has been generated on 10.03.2012. If the assessee has got audited u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act and has obtained audit report from a Accountant as defined in the Income Tax Act, the figures shown in the financial statements are put in the appropriate columns and the figures shown in the income tax return should be tallied with the financial statements. The figures shown in the income tax return are in agreement with the audit reports produced before us which is placed in the paper book at page Nos.32 to 39. But the commission income has not been shown and the creditors figures are different. It is beyond the scope of our understanding that as to why figures are different in both the returns submitted by the assessee with the income tax department, whereas the auditor and the date of audit report is also same in the both the returns. As observed that “Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” The case of the assessee clearly falls within the ambit of the observations in KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] towards “undisclosed income”. We, therefore, reject the contention of the assessee that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search by which the AO cannot interfere with the assessment completed originally while making the assessment u/s.153C of the Act. The dual policy taken by the assessee cannot be accepted. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case law relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case. In view of the above the legal ground raised by the assessee is hereby rejected. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee could not explain the differences noticed by the AO in both the returns. The assessee had opportunity in the appellate proceedings, however, he could not avail the same and failed to explain before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has passed a good and reasoned order in respect of two additions made by the AO regarding commission income of ₹ 10,11,780/- and difference in the sundry creditors of ₹ 4,00,000/-, which do not require any further interference by us. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|