TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer in this regard has observed that as per the documents at pages 34-35 of annexure A-9 seized from the office premises of M/s. Narain and Co. were confronted to the assessee, vide show-cause notice dated February 20, 2013, proposing to adopt the purchase of land at the rate of Rs. 6,50,000 per bigha. The assessee submitted, before the Assessing Officer the following arguments, vide his letter dated February 28, 2013 : "This is with reference to your letter dated February 20, 2013, regarding to adopt the rate of land at Rs. 6,50,000 per bigha for the land purchased by the company in the year under assessment. In this regard we submit as under : As regards the justification of pages 34 and 35 of annexure A-9 with regard to the purchase of land by M/s. R. P. Export and Import Pvt. Ltd. it is being submitted that the applicant company, namely, M/ s. R. P. Export and Import, purchased a land of 49 bighas situated in village Salani in the financial year 2006-07. The total amount was paid by the company to the buyers amounting to Rs. 68,36,500 as per the registration deed. Copy of the title deed also found and seized by the Department during the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajinder Puri and Sh. Ram Murti and the land was ultimately transferred to Sh. Sumit Gupta, S/o Sh. Bhola Nath, at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000 per bigha whereas the rate of land as per the agreement referred to was Rs. 6,50,000 per bigha. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to conclude that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 23,62,500 for the purchase of the said land leading to an addition thereof under section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessment order dated March 25, 2013, whereby addition of Rs. 23,62,500 was made, was challenged before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the assessee made detailed submissions explaining therein that the seized document is cancelled/crossed alleged agreement relating to some other party with which the assessee has nothing to do. There is no name of the assessee on the seized paper and none of the directors are also connected with the same. The assessee purchased 46 bighas, 9 biswas of land from different persons after making withdrawals from the bank account. No evidence was found against the assessee for making any payment over and above what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The seized paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 2,31,00,000 was required to be made for the entire property. Since the copy of the agreement in question was received from the independent sources and it is not examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer dated March 25, 2013, was considered erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 6. The assessee submitted before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) that the same seized paper was considered by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have deleted the entire addition and the Tribunal also dismissed the Departmental appeal. Therefore, no action can be taken under section 263 of the Income-tax Act on the same matter in issue. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and found that no addition of the remaining land, i.e., about 44 bighas has been made by the Assessing Officer which is forming part of the same village and addition is required to be made of Rs. 2,31,00,000. Copy of the seized document which is not cancelled, has been received from independent sources. Authe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same matter in issue should not believe the copy of the same seized paper. Since the cancelled seized paper was recovered during the course of search, therefore, copy of the same has no relevance, more so when the same did not relate to the assessee. The Assessing Officer examined the entire issue at the assessment stage and took one of the possible views based on the same seized document, therefore, on mere difference of opinion, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax should not have resorted to action under section 263 of the Act. He has further submitted that the same issue, prior to the proceedings under section 263 of the Act have been examined by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer merged with the order of the appellate authorities and as such, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to invoke the proceedings under section 263 of the Act. (i) On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative relied upon the impugned order and submitted that copy of the same seized paper is relevant and the Assessing Officer merely ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ords relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner ; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere added to the income of the assessee ; and (iv) that during the assessment proceedings of JNS Bank, which was run by the assessee, it could not explain the deposit of Rs. 79,40,246 and, therefore, the addition of the amount was made in the case of the bank on protective basis with the finding that the addition should be considered on substantive basis in the hands of various depositors and also protective addition should be made in the hands of the assessee but it was not considered by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the action of the Commissioner was not justified. On appeal : Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal had adverted to the factual position in a detailed manner, had appreciated those issues that had been taken up by the Commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under section 263 and held that the facets had been dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, by virtue of clause (c) of section 263(1) the Commissioner was not competent to assume jurisdiction and direct reassessment. The order of the Tribunal was justified." (i) The aforesaid judgment has been confirmed by the hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the agreement till he had signed the agreement. The mere fact that this agreement was found in the possession of the assessee did not lead anywhere. Thus, the addition of Rs. 17,00,892 made by the Assessing Officer by way of half share of the assessee in the earnest money was based on surmises and guess work only and was liable to be deleted." 13. Since the seized document pages 34-35 of annexure A-9 seized from the office premises of M/s. Narain and Co. was not executed by the assessee- company and did not relate to the assessee-company at all, therefore, where is the question of making any addition against the assessee even in respect of the balance land of 44 bighas as is noted in the impugned order. The Assessing Officer, at the assessment stage, has examined the issue in detail and the assessee also filed a detailed reply before the Assessing Officer in respect of the entire property so purchased and also made a detailed reply on the seized paper, therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in detail. Therefore, when prior to the initiation of the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, matter in issue has been examined by the ap....