9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxes thereupon. The assessment, thus, was made on substantive basis in the hands of estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thereby undisclosed income of Rs. 8 crore and Rs. 1.58 crore respectively was added as income in respect of the amount lying in the said foreign bank account. However, a protective assessment was made in the assessee's case for assessment year 2007-08 at the peak value of US$ 21,51,725 (INR 9,57,07,316). The Ld. PCIT, however, noted that the peak value of the amount lying in the said undisclosed bank account was US$ 17,95,426 (INR 8,07,94,197) for assessment year 2006-07 and that the said amount should have been added to the assessee's income for assessment year 2006-07 on protective basis, which was not done by the AO and instead entire peak of US$ 21,51,725 (INR 9,57,07,316) was added on protective basis in assessment year 2007-08. He, therefore, held that since the amount pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 was not added in the respective year, hence the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, exercising his powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It has been further contended that even if the order is revised, no pecuniary benefit or taxes are likely to be enhanced or received from the assessee as the additions in the case of assessee were made only on protective basis. It has been further submitted that since the amount lying in the bank account was admitted and accepted and taxes paid by the estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta even there was no justification for making addition on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Finally the Ld. A.R. has contended that even if it is assumed that the order of the AO is erroneous on the ground that a part of the amount lying in the bank account should have been assessed/added in the assessment year 2006-07 instead of the entire addition made in assessment year 2007-08 on protective basis, still the said order cannot in any manner be said to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, has supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. A specific question was asked to the Ld. A.R. that whether any appeal has been filed by the legal heir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d AO erred in wrongly calculating the amount of interest payable on account of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the calculation of Ld. AO may kindly be directed to be revised. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter, omit any of the grounds of appeal before the hearing of the appeal, if so advised." 6. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that though there is no specific challenge to the additions relating to the amount found lying in the account of late Shri V.C. Mehta, however, vide ground No.1, which is a general ground, the assessee has challenged assessment order itself stating that the same is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. was asked to explain in this respect. At this, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that even vide ground No.1 the estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta has not challenged or disowned the amount lying in the bank account of late Shri V.C. Mehta. To further substantiate his contentions the Ld. A.R. has produced on file a letter dated 20.10.2016 accompanied with a copy of undertaking submitted by the executors of estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein they have underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the taxes paid amongst various assessment years. Our above submissions may kindly be taken on record. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Kerul S. Shah Hitendra K. Bhansali Executors of "Estate of Late Vrajlal C. Mehta" (appointed as such under the last will and testament of Mr. V. C. Mehta dated 14th December 2002 and the probate dated 28th November 2007 issued by the High Court at Bombay)" 7. Since the executors of estate of late Shri V.C. Mehta have owned up the amount lying in the HSBC Bank and have paid the taxes thereupon and they have also given an undertaking to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that they owned up the bank balances lying in the bank account of late Shri V.C. Mehta, hence, under such circumstances, the addition, if any, made on protective basis in the hands of assessee will not have any tax effect. The Ld. A.R. has stated that by setting aside the assessment proceedings relating to the decisions made on protective basis in the hands of assessee, the assessee has been subjected to face multiple proceedings and will have to suffer harassment of attending the proceedings before the AO which ultimately will not have any bearing in relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
