Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 551 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (12) TMI 551 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Undisclosed investment, unexplained loans and unexplained share application money - assessments u/s. 153A/153C - CIT(A) deleted the addition admitting additional evidence - Held that:- We do not see any additional evidence being admitted by the CIT(A) in disposing of this issue. Assessee only stated the dates and amounts involved and entire information was available with AO consequent to the search and seizure proceedings. Since the Revenue has raised t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the basis of incriminating material. However, this opinion that not upheld by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT [2012 (6) TMI 657 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] which was rendered on 15-12-2011 much before the order of the CIT(A). In fact, CIT(A) is bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court order. Not only the jurisdictional High Court, but also the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Courts (supra) have held that for completing the assessments u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

portunity to Assessee. Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 1515, 1516 & 1517/HYD/2014, CO Nos. 75, 76 & 77/HYD/2014 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, JM And B. Ramakotaiah, AM For the Petitioner : Shri Rama Krishna, Bandi, DR For the Respondent : Shri Kishore Kumar Kabra, AR ORDER Per Bench The appeals are by Revenue and Cross-Objections are by Assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad dt. 30-05-2014. Revenue is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ention of R.46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in following the decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) SB to hold that no addition can be made in the unabated assessments U/s. 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. 4. On the facts of the case, CIT(A) is not correct in relying on the decision of All Cargo Logistics Ltd., since in the present case no original a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed in the Cross-objections are as under: "(a) In assessments that are abated, the Assessing Officer retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction conferred on him under section 153A for which assessments shall be made for each of the six assessment years separately. (b) In other cases, in addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment U/s. 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material, which in the context of relevant provisions means - (i) boo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Income Tax Act [Act] conducted on 29-01-2009 along with another group company of Sunder Steel Cases. Assessee was issued notice u/s. 153A and in response, Assessee filed returns of income by admitting NIL income. In the course of proceedings u/s. 153A, Assessing Officer (AO) in all the years examined the share application money and unsecured loans received and in the absence of details, the said amounts were brought to tax in respective assessment years. Thus, in all the impugned assessment yea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue. Briefly stated, during the year, Assessee purchased land at Anthireddy Guda Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District for a sum of ₹ 12,60,000/- as per agreement of sale. The same was registered for a sum of ₹ 6 Lakhs and Assessee accounted the same in the Books of Account. In the course of search and seizure operations, Assessee was asked to explain the difference in sale consideration of ₹ 6,60,000/-. Assessee admitted ₹ 4 Lakhs towards undisclosed payment m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and paid a sum of ₹ 2 Lakhs at the time of execution of agreement which was before the date of incorporation. Since the advance of ₹ 2 Lakhs was paid prior to incorporation of company, company is not responsible for the investment. Subsequently, the seller executed one receipt dt. 4th August, 2003 stating that they had received sums aggregating to ₹ 6 Lakhs till 4th August, 2003 and they have to receive a further sum of ₹ 6 Lakhs only. Company however, admitted income of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eleted the amount by stating as under: "5.3 Perused the observations of the assessing officer and the submissions of the appellant. As could be seen from the facts of the case the property under reference was purchased for ₹ 12,60,000/- and registered for ₹ 6.00 lacs, with a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- was admitted by the appellant, as unexplained investment, though it was paid by the previous promoters and the failure of the Assessee to produce the details for the payment of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

promoters. Thus, based on the further facts that have been brought on record, I am of the considered opinion that the addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- is not sustainable in the hands of the appellant company and this ground of appeal is treated as Allowed". 5.3. We do not see any additional evidence being admitted by the CIT(A) in disposing of this issue. Assessee only stated the dates and amounts involved and entire information was available with AO consequent to the search and seizure proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

leted the same stating that additions cannot be made in the assessment without any reference to seized material. In coming to that decision, Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT [147 TTJ (SB) 513]. Revenue is objecting the same and raised the grounds accordingly in all the impugned three assessment years. 7. Ld. DR submitted that jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Badruka Vs. DCIT [346 ITR 106] has held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

habad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajkumar Arora [367 ITR 517] (Allahabad) and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia [352 ITR 493]. Assessee also raised the cross-objections on the same issue, as can be seen from the grounds. 8. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the provisions of law, we are of the opinion that order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions cannot be upheld. It is true that ITAT Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Logistics .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version