2018 (6) TMI 1692 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal validates undisclosed income additions, dismisses appeals for multiple assessment years.

Navneet Jhamb Versus ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

Navneet Jhamb Versus ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the AO under section 153A/143(3).2. Recording of requisite satisfaction and obtaining requisite approval.3. Addition of undisclosed income based on seized documents.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.5. Benefit of telescoping.6. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the AO under section 153A/143(3):The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the AO in framing the assessment order under section 153A/143(3) without assuming jurisdiction as per law. The Tribunal upheld the AO's jurisdiction, noting that the search and seizure operation conducted at the assessee's premises justified the invocation of section 153A.2. Recording of requisite satisfaction and obtaining requisite approval:The assessee contended that the AO did not record the requisite satisfaction or obtain the necessary approval as per law. The Tribunal found that the AO had followed the due process, and the assessment orders were validly framed under section 153A/143(3).3. Addition of undisclosed income based on seized documents:The primary issue was the addition of undisclosed income based on documents seized during the search. The AO made additions for various assessment years based on these documents, which showed unaccounted profit from real estate transactions. The Tribunal upheld the additions, emphasizing that the documents found during the search were sufficient evidence of undisclosed income. The Tribunal noted:- The seized documents contained detailed calculations of profits from the sale of plots.- The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or evidence to counter the contents of the seized documents.- The presumption under section 292C applied, and the contents of the seized documents were deemed true.4. Violation of principles of natural justice:The assessee argued that the assessment was framed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination or confront the adverse material. The Tribunal found that the AO had provided adequate opportunities for the assessee to explain the seized documents, and the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations justified the additions.5. Benefit of telescoping:The assessee contended that the benefit of telescoping should have been granted. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the assessee did not provide any evidence to support the claim for telescoping. The additions were based on specific documents showing unaccounted income, and there was no basis for telescoping.6. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:The assessee challenged the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal held that the charging of interest was consequential and upheld the AO's action.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2006-07, upholding the additions made by the AO based on the seized documents. The Tribunal found that the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction under section 153A, followed due process, and provided adequate opportunities to the assessee. The additions were justified based on the detailed calculations and evidence found in the seized documents, and the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence to counter the contents of these documents.