Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 10 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Necessity to have seized material to frame assessment u/s. 153A - contention of the Ld. A.R. is that assessment for these assessment years were already completed u/s. 143(3) before the date of search i.e. on 23.8.2016 and the assessment is not pending as on the date of search - as per CIT earlier assessment cannot be added again in the reassessment proceedings u/s. 153A, in as much it will amount to an addition being made twice as the assessment in which the addition was originally made had not abated - HELD THAT:- We do not find any infirmity and these findings of Ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the judgement of Kabul Chawla cited [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Before us, Ld. A.R. made one more plea that the department enforced the demand created in these assessment years consequent to assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and also demand created as a result of assessment framed u/s.153A of the Act and he also filed copies of demand notices for these assessment years stating that department is enforcing both the demands which amount to double taxation of same income. We make it clear that the department cannot enforce both the demands, which is created vide assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessment framed u/s. 153A of the Act. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla cited (supra), department has to ensure the enforcement of only one demand created consequent to the search action and framing of assessment u/s. 153A of the Act and we direct accordingly. Addition under the terminology 'Unaccounted Fees Received in Cash' - addition was made based on certain notings found impounded material labelled as GEF(M)/133A/5 which are loose sheets as, holding the same to be fees received in cash - HELD THAT:- Adverting to the facts of present case, AO relied upon the statement recorded and loose sheets impounded during the survey u/s. 133(1A) for making addition. The statement of D.V. Guruprasad cannot be relied in its entirety and this is not supported by any corroborated evidence. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to uphold the addition made on that basis. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. Addition based on loose sheets - CIT-A observed that the AO has relied upon the sworn statements of Mr. D.V. Guruprasad which are ambivalent in nature which certainly necessitates further inquiry and gathering of clinching/formidable evidence to justify the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) observed that inquiry from persons, students who allegedly paid the money was essential to corroborate loose sheets as required by the decision in the case of CBI vs VC Shukla [1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT] and Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others vs Union of India [2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT] - And since such corroborative evidence is not found, one is constrained from sustaining an addition so made in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Hence the addition is found to be unsustainable. There is no corroborated evidence other than the statement of Shri D.V. Guru Prasad to support the entries in the loose sheets. Accordingly, as discussed in earlier para, we delete the addition.
|