TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the two transactions; establishing the information as disclosed from the copy of the consent letters received along with the Tax Evasion Petition. The first transaction took place in the financial year 1998-1999, in which the assessee admitted receipt of only ₹ 44,00,000/- and after the execution of the first sale deed, there was a withdrawal of ₹ 50,50,000/- from the purchaser's account. This obviously was for the second transaction, the sale deed of which was executed on 10.05.1999, at the commencement of the next financial year 1999-2000. The exact amount of income escaped from assessment is supported by ample evidence. We do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. The questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is rejected affirming the order of the Tribunal. The computation of capital gains shall be proceeded with by the Assessing Officer and finalised expeditiously; if not already done. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs. - I.T.A.Nos.186 of 2013 And 217 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2018 - MR. K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR. ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The APPELLANT : Sri.V.V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three grounds. One that the assessment year 1999-2000 cannot be taken up for consideration of block assessment, since it is beyond the six year period provided under Section 153A of the Act. The contention was advanced on the premise that the last of the search on 20.04.2005 was in 2006-2007 and the block years have to be computed from the date of the panchnama as prepared by the officer conducting the last of the searches. Yet another contention was with respect to the documents relied on to make additions, being not one seized in the search conducted and hence the proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 143 being non est . There was also an objection raised with respect to the computation of capital gains. 4. The first appellate authority rejected the contention with respect to the assessment year 1999-2000 not being liable for consideration in the 6 year block period. The argument as to no proceedings being possible under Section 153A, for reason of the same being not based on material recovered at search was also rejected. With respect to the documents relied on, the Assessing Officer found that there could have been no reliance placed on the consent letters receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of law, which are as follows: ( i) Can the Assessing Officer rely on materials already available with him (much prior to the search) in a proceeding under Section 153A? Is not such exercise a colourable one and consequently irregular and vitiated? ( ii) Is not the impugned assessment proceedings barred by limitation? 7. Though common questions are raised in the appeals the one on limitation framed as (ii) is confined to assessment year 1999-2000. The question raised essentially is whether the Tribunal was correct in finding that the assessment year 1999-2000 would be liable to be included under the block period of 6 years as provided under Section 153A of the Act when the last of the searches conducted under Section 132 and the panchnama prepared was on 20.04.2005 in the assessment year 2006-07. The question at (i), common to both years raise the issue whether the reliance placed on the consent letters obtained by the Department by way of a Tax Evasion Petition could be sustained as valid to initiate proceedings under Section 143 read with Section 153A when the said document was not one recovered in the search conducted in the premises of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the search is conducted or requisition made. The authorisation under Section 132 or Section 132A or the last of such authorisation issued, is relevant only for considering the limitation for finalisation of assessments and not for computing the block period of six years. The limitation period with respect to finalisation of assessment cannot be applied for computaion of the assessment years which are enabled to be assessed or reassessed under Section 153A. 10. On the facts of the present case, the first search was conducted on 02.03.2005 in the assessment year 2005-06. Hence, it enabled assessment or reassessment for 6 prior assessment years from the assessment year on which the search was conducted. The first search being in the assessment year 2005-2006, the 6th assessment year prior to the search, is 1999-2000; on the previous year of which the first transaction occured. There is hence no limitation as to the assessment year reopened, ie: 1999-2000 and we answer question No.(ii) against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 11. The other question raised by the appellant, for both the assessment years, is that the proceedings under Section 153A is not sustina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... materials which were inciminating by themselves. The search could have revealed further defalcations or could have revealed further incriminating material with respect to the same transaction. True, there were no further incriminating materials received on the land deal. But it was revealed that the assessee had rental income from a flat purchased by the assessee at Bangalore. The purchase was in the year 1998-99 and it was sold in the assessment year 2004-05 upon which certain additions were made for that year. The additions made for that year was modified by the Tribunal, on which there is no appeal. But it is of significance that the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 153A, conceeded the rental income in the block period and the consideration recieved from the land deal was also shown as more than that originally returned. There was incriminating material seized, with respect to the rental income, which was conceeded to by the assessee in the returrn filed pursuant to the search and seizure. There can hence be no ground taken that the other material which were already available with the Department cannot be relied on in the proceedings. Further, the proceedings p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. The proviso restricts any such proceeding after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if an assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or Section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necesary for the assessment. Issuance of notice, where income has escaped assessment, as provided for in Section 148, is subject to the limitation provided under Section 149. No notice under Section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if four years have elapsed from the end of the said year under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149. However, the limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re fact that without proceeding under Section 147 read with Sections 148 and 149, the Department proceeded under Section 153A would not by that alone absolve the assessee from making good the tax relating to the income which has escaped assessment. The mere fact that the provision under which the Department proceeded was not proper, would not vitiate the entire proceedings especially since there is no procedural requirement distinguishing a notice under Section 148 or one under Section 153A. 20. Now we have to look at whether the escapement of income is proved and established. The appellant has a contention that the assessee did not accept the signture in the copy of the consent letters. Nor could a verification of the signature with admitted signatures be attempted, for reason of the material received by the Department being mere photo copies. There was no evidence unearthed, according to the appellant, as to the assessee having received any amounts other than that returned, i.e., ₹ 60,00,000/-; ₹ 44,00,000/- in the financial year 1998-99 and ₹ 16,00,000/- in 1999-2000. That is a question of fact and we would not have normally looked into the same; and there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
