Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 28 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - revise scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act holding it as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue - undisclosed income accepted / acknowledged by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings - AO Taxed it at normal rate of tax of 30% as against the higher rate as provided under section 115BBE of the Act of 60% - HELD THAT:- All that is required for invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act is that the assessee is “found” to be the “owner” of money during the course of survey. There is a marked difference between “money/ cash” being “found” at the premises of the assessee and the assessee being “found” to be the “owner” of money /cash”. Section 69A of the Act only contemplates of the latter situation. An assessee can be “found” to be the “owner” of money/cash on the basis of seized documents/ diary/ the statement of the assessee or working partner of an assessee firm made during the course of search. In the instant facts, admittedly certain diary noting was found and further the working partner of the assessee firm admitted to certain undisclosed income in cash outside the books of accounts. Therefore, there is no restriction in invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE in the instant facts. Restriction on cash transactions - In the instant facts, admittedly, a sum of 1,01,00,000/-was received by the assessee firm in cash, which was admittedly not reflected in the books of accounts. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO should have made requisite enquiries with regards to applicability of provisions of section 269ST read with section 271DA of the Act, while framing the assessment. In the instant case, evidently, no enquiries with regards to applicability of section 269ST read with section 271DA of the Act, were made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, when evidently it was within the knowledge of the AO that the aforesaid amount was received by the assessee firm in cash, outside the books of accounts. We are unable to accept the argument of assessee that simply if the assessee declared the undisclosed income discovered during the course of survey proceedings, as its “business income” (though in the instant facts, the aforesaid amount was declared as “other income” in the return of income), then, this itself would take the case outside the purview of section 269ST read with section 271DA of the Act. Thus we are of the considered view that Principal CIT has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Decided against assessee.
|