TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears. Since issues in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are combined, heard together, and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The common ground raised by the assessees in these appeals is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer when it was not provided in u/s.153A of the Act and that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search action u/s.132 of the Act. Further, it was stated by the assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB). 3. The brief facts of the case are that there was search action in these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 Total income (as returned) 93,49,490 Add Income from other sources (claimed to be Agricultural income) 1,72,000 Total income 95,21,490 Income Tax thereon 28,30,447 Less Rebate u/s.88C 5,000 Income tax payable 28,25,447 ITA No.2743/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 Total income (as returned u/s153A) 1,23,55,470 Add Addition u/s.68 as discussed above 68,000 Add Undisclosed income as discussed above 30,000 Total income 1,24,53,470 ITA No.2744/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12 Total income declared by the assessee 1,34,69,681 Addition u/s.69A 10,63,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed before the due date of filing return of income and also before date of search and there was no incriminating material found during the search to suggest additions. Further, he submitted that certain additions in assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 were made in the case of Joseph Prince on the reason that consent was given by the assessee to make additions in respect of unexplained credit, deposit into bank account and short term capital gain and disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act and these additions cannot be sustained. Even if the assessee agreed at the time of assessment, these additions cannot be legally sustainable. For this proposition, the ld. Authorised Representative for assessees relied on the judgment of Madras high court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action when it came to notice that certain credits and investments are not properly explained. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. There are certain additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information which was available with the assessing authorities in the form of earlier returns of income and financial statement attached thereof. In our opinion, additions could be made in the case of completed assessments (assessment years which were not abated) only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer did not found any incriminating material warranting addition. Being so, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to make ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,65,000/- each from one Mr. T.P. Joseph but when asked to substantiate the gifts with supporting evidences, the assessee furnished copies of gift deeds devoid of address of the donor. However, the assessee agreed for the addition of I5,30,000/- subject to not to initiate penalty proceedings. Since the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the gift, the same was added to assessee's total income and penalty proceedings u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated and levied penalty of I1,61,733/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 8. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty by observing that the assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd which the Assessing Officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain the penalty. The assessee has returned the income at I93,02,420/- (including agricultural income of I2,50,000/-). However, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made additions to the tune of I5,30,000/- to the returned income of I93,02,420/- while doing so, the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish the fresh confirmation from the donor and to prove identity and capacity f the donor. The assessee has not proved identity and capacity of the donor with any cogent evidence before the Assessing Officer. As per the explanation 1 contained....