Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - I.T.A. No.626/Bang/2013, C.O. No.104/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, JJ. For The Assessee Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Anurag Sahay,CIT (D.R) ORDER Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore dt.14.12.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has also preferred Cross Objections (C.O.) in the matter. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under :- 2.1 The assessee filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.9.2008 declaring income of ₹ 19,62,85,960. Pursuant to search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I have considered the rival contentions carefully. From the date of search on 26.10.2007 till reconfirmation before ADIT on 22.12.2007 and 24.12.2007 there is almost 2 months gap which is enough time which shows that the declaration given after 2 months of date of search is well thought of one. The new argument of the appellant after substantial time lapse appears to be clearly an afterthought for the reasons mentioned by the A.O. 5.2 Another interesting feature is that the amount of ₹ 35,000 is already admitted by the appellant in her return. Subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings, it was requested to exclude that income on the reasoning that it belongs to M/s. Ennoble India Savings Investment Company also c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5,00,000 made on account of unaccounted cash found and seized in the course of search on 26.10.2007. According to the ld. A.R., in the course of search on 26.10.2007 cash of ₹ 36,16,500 was found. On the day of search the assessee stated that the said cash belonged to Obulapuram Mining Company and since the books of account of this firm was incomplete and no proper explanation in respect of the cash was forth coming, an amount of ₹ 35,00,000 was seized. 3.2.2 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that in the return of income filed on 20.7.2009 in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, declaring ₹ 21,07,24,880, additional income amounting to ₹ 1,35,00,000 was disclosed which comprised, inter al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he fact that the same income cannot be taxed twice. According to the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), deleting the amount of seized cash of ₹ 35 lakhs in the assessee's hands, is to be confirmed as the addition of the same seized cash of ₹ 35 lakhs in the case of her husband Sri G. Janardhan Reddy has been upheld by the learned CIT (Appeals) and further no further appeal has been preferred by the assessee's husband in the matter. The learned Authorised Representative has filed an Affidavit dt.8.7.2015 sworn to by Sri G. Janardhan Reddy to this effect. 3.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. The sole issue f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ;s husband. Accordingly, I agree with the argument of the appellant that the same income cannot be taxed twice and for these reasons direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition in the hands of the appellant. 3.3.2 The above finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) establishes that since the same income being already brought to tax in the hands of Sri G. Janardhan Reddy and the same being upheld by him as such, the income cannot be taxed twice, i. E. once again in the assessee's hands and he therefore deleted the same addition in the case on hand. In confirmation of the averments of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that the assessee's husband Sri G. Janardhan Reddy has accepted the order of the learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 3.3.3 In the light of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed from para 3.1 to 3.3.2 above, we concur with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order (supra), that the unexplained income arising out of ₹ 35,00,000 having been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee's husband, Sri G. Janardhan Reddy, the addition in the hands of the assessee is the case on hand is to be deleted as the same income cannot be taxed twice. In coming to this finding, we are bolstered in our view by the Affidavit sworn to by Sri G. Janardhan Reddy (supra) to confirm that the same addition is accepted by him in his case and that no further appeal has been preferred in the matter. Consequently Ground No.1 raised by Rev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates