Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 424 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - unexplained jewellery - Ad hoc addition on administrative expenses - disallowance of depreciation at 1/5th. Assessment u/s 153A - unexplained jewellery - whether no search warrant or Panchnama drawn in the case of the assessee? - Ld. counsel for assessee submitted that no search warrant is issued u/s 132 in the name of the assessee and that no panchnama is drawn and no search is conducted in the premises of the assessee, therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s 153A is null and void - HELD THAT:- On persual of section 153A of the Act, it would be clear that once the warrant of authorization or requisition is issued and search is conducted, panchnama is drawn, the completed assessments for all the relevant years would get reopened irrespective of whether any incriminating material is found or not in relation to a particular assessment year. However, the warrant of authorization shall have to be executed by the authorized officer in order to justify invoking of the jurisdiction by the AO u/s 153A of the Act - It is established on record that joint search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee and M/s. Rajat Gems & Jewelleries (P.) Ltd. Ld. DR also filed copy of panchnama drawn on execution of the search warrant which clearly mentioned that the premises of the assessee was subjected to search. It would, therefore, prove that search warrant is issued in the name of the assessee and search is conducted in its premises and panchnama is also drawn, therefore, requirements of section 153A are satisfied in this case. The ADIT (Inv.) in his report also submitted that warrant of authorization in the case of assessee is executed which was sharing the same premises with M/s. Rajat Gems & Jewelleries (P.) Ltd. This fact is not disputed by ld. counsel for assessee. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the arguments of ld. counsel for assessee. There is no infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeals of the assessee in both the years. This issue is, therefore, decided against the assessee. Ad hoc addition on administrative expenses - disallowance of depreciation at 1/5th - HELD THAT:- Additions are ad hoc in nature and liable to be deleted - AO has not pointed out as to which of the expenditure is nor verifiable. AO without mentioning anything specifically against the assessee made the routine disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) without any justification has exceeded the reasons by saying that assessee-company is running like a partnership firm. The ld. CIT(A) should confine to the issue before him and in case, any other reasons are to be quoted in the appellate order then the basis of the same should also be revealed in the order - We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire additions on both the grounds in both the years. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeals of the assessee are, accordingly, allowed. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
|