TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prejudicial' to the interest of the Revenue. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT was justified to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 particularly when the assessment was completed u/s 153 A/C read with Sec. 143(3) based upon the seized/impounded material and based upon the disclosure statement. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT was justified to review the assessment/for further verification under the garb of section 263 on the ground of lack of enquiry/when the Ld. AO took a fair and reasonable view on the seized/impounded document/papers and appraisal report etc. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT was justified by exercising the power and passing the order u/s 263 on the premise that seized/impounded documents were not properly examined from the angle of investment and violation of section 40(A)3 despite the fact that the same were very much examined as appears from the Assessment Order/and various submissions. 4. In addition to above, the assessee has moved an application dt 22.6.2013 for admission of following additional ground:- Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 in setting aside the assessment order u/s 263 without any firm and final findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the incumbent in March 2009 and the new officer noted that information filed by the assessee was incomplete as the complete explanation of the assessee company was not available on each and every documents seized/impounded during search/survey operation and, therefore, fresh notice u/s 143(2) read with section 142(1) was issued on 16.6.2009. Later on, again various adjournments were sought and some information was filed but generally there was non cooperation, therefore, ultimately the Assessing Officer went on to make an assessment u/s 144. The assessment was completed on 30.12.2009 by making the following observations in para 16 of the assessment order. "16. From the facts adduced above, it is evident that the document seized/impounded remained unexplained and unverifiable and as such the transactions recorded in these documents are required to be added to the income returned. However, to be fair and reasonable, the undersigned is of the view that the assessment at the surrendered amount of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- will meet the end of justice. Therefore the income of the assessee, for the A.Y. 2008-09 under consideration, is assessed at Rs. 8,50,00,000/- as surrendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is set aside with the directions to make fresh assessment de-novo after properly examining and appreciating the seized material and conducting proper enquiry and after affording and opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee narrated the facts and pointed out that in this case the Assessing Officer had sent a proposal for passing of Revisionary Order u/s 263 to the Commissioner through Addl. CIT. The careful reading of the proposal would show that Assessing Officer wants to review his own order which is not possible. In this regard he referred to page 4 of the proposal and pointed out that Assessing Officer has noted the facts and in case Assessing Officer has committed a mistake he has no authority to review his own order. He also pointed out that assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment before the CIT(A) who asked for a remand report and Assessing Officer has sent his report vide letter dated 25.8.2011, copy of which is available at pages 168 to 171 of the paper book. Reading of this letter would clearly show that whatever stand the Assessing Officer has taken before the CIT(A), he has taken a contrary stand before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der was not sustainable. In this regard he also referred to the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Rajiv Arora v. CIT-III, 131 ITD 58 (JP) wherein similar observation was made. He also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Company v. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) wherein it was clearly held that before initiating the proceedings u/s 263, Commissioner must call for records and after examination and obtaining satisfaction, issue show cause notice. In the case before us, no satisfaction has been recorded and in this regard he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PVS Beedis (P) Ltd 237 ITR 13. He also referred to another decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaswinder Singh v. CIT ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 (2012)/150 TTJ (Chd)(UO)33 wherein it was observed that before issuing notice, the Commissioner should call for the records and examine the same and record the satisfaction and then issue the show cause notice. He also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Madura Coats Ltd, Madurai v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai & Others 197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 (SC). 13. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that Commissioner has not recorded any satisfaction in the show cause notice that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The order only talks of the under assessment of income. In any case, in the order passed by the Commissioner, no specific finding has been given to show that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 14. He also referred to letter dated 23.3.2009, copy of which is available from pages 80 to 84 of the paper book. He particularly invited our attention to page 83 in which explanation was given how practically the surrendered income of Rs. 8.5 crores was offered in various hands. He also referred to the letter addressed by the Assessing Officer to Addl. Commissioner of I.Tax, Range-3 (at page 131), which shows that papers were filed in case of Rupinder Singh also and that is why the Assessing Officer has taken the pain to give information to the Addl. Commissioner for taking further action which clearly shows that various replies were filed by the assessee. He also referred to pages 86 to 88 of the paper book which is copy of the letter dated 22.12.2009 in which it was cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... various properties were found. Simultaneously, a search was conducted in the premises of one Shri Deepak Chauhan, who is brother-in-law of Shri Suresh Kumar Khanna amd various documents were found at his residence also and he clearly stated that these documents belongs to Basera Realtors Pvt Ltd. This fact was admitted by Shri Suresh Kumar Khanna. Ultimately on 21.2.2008, Shri Suresh Kumar Khanna admitted the fact of the incriminating documents and offered to declare a sum of Rs. 8.5 crores in financial year 2007-08. This was further confirmed by a letter dated 21.2.2008 in which all the directors have signed and offer of surrender of Rs. 8.5 crores was reiterated. Again, the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Khanna was recorded on 24.3.2008 in which he again confirmed the fact of surrender of Rs. 8.5 crores. Despite this surrender, the return was filed only for Rs. 3,37,85,728/-. This shows that assessee was not cooperating with the Department. When the return was filed only for Rs. 3.37 cores, the Assessing Officer should have been more vigilant to verify various documents and completed the assessment accordingly which has not been done perhaps the Assessing Officer was conscious o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also strongly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). There is no force in the submissions that Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view merely because Assessing Officer has made assessment at the surrendered amount. When assessee has not honoured the surrender, then the Assessing Officer was duty bound to examine all the documents and then reach to proper assessable income. He submitted that if income is assessed at surrendered amount without inquiry such order would be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and in this regard he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Lajja Wati Singhal v. CIT 226 ITR 527 (All.). 19. The Ld. DR pointed out that there is no force in the submissions that assessee company alongwith others has already surrendered more or less the same amount which was declared during the search. This fact was stated before the Commissioner vide letter dated 5.7.2011 which is available in assessee's paper book at pages 164 to 167, wherein the details of income declared/surrendered h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain judgments under Sales Tax laws or other laws (not reported in ITRs) for which copies were not available with him, therefore, we had clearly told the Ld. Counsel that in the absence of copies of the judgments, such judgments could not be considered because Tribunal library does not have those books. Even in the paper book dealing with the citations, voluminous judgments were relied upon and therefore, we asked him to point out the judgments which are relevant to the case and whatever judgments were pointed out have been considered above while recording his submissions. Further, during the course of hearing it was noticed that paper book No.1 contained many documents which were not available in the records of the Revenue. Ld. counsel had sought sometime to verify this and later on vide letter dated 15.1.2014 he has sought to withdraw the paper book and replaced the same with modified paper book which was filed on 11.10.2013 and, therefore, this paper book has been considered by us. 22. M/s Basera Realtors (P) Ltd is a Company incorporated on 15.9.2005 and is engaged in the business of real estate. The company had following directors. 1. Shri Suresh Khanna 2. Shri Rupin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subject to no penal action." Further, a letter dated 21.2.2008 was also given by the company which was signed by all the directors of the company confirming the amount of surrender. The letter reads as under:- "(ii) Letter dated 21.02.2008 signed by S/Sh. Suresh Kumar Khanna, Sh. Rupinderdeep Singh, Sahibjit Singh & Jai Inder Singh Application for Disclosure of additional income for F.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 under Sec 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (2006-07 and 2007-08): Today a search under Sec 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is conducted at our various premises (offices & residences ) which is still going on during course of search & survey at our various offices, residences, certain loose papers have been found. To Purchase peace of mind and to avoid litigation we hereby offer to disclose an additional income of Rs. 850 lacs (Rs. Eight Crore & Fifty Lac) only for the financial year 2006-07 & 2007-08 in addition to our normal income in the hands of our co. M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 10 Canal View South City Ludhiana. This offer of disclosure has been made subject to no penalty. This disclosure has been made without pressure and is voluntarily. Thanking You Yours fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09, the case can't be taken up. The case is accordingly adjourned to 06.11.2009 and informed Sh. Asim Atrey, CA on his mobile phone No. 98723-44556 at 10.07 AM. 09.11.2009 Present Sh. Asim Atrey, CA and sought extension of time for compliance of notices. The period for compliance of notice is extended to 13.11.09. 13.11.2009 Present Sh. Asim Atrey, CA and sought extension of time for compliance of notices. The period for compliance of notices is extended to 19.11.2009. 19.11.2009 Notice u/s 142(1) alongwith penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) for 24.11.2009 issued. 24.11.2009 Assessee's request for inspection of files received. Asked to have inspection. 03.12.2009 Reply to the notices not received though the inspection of files already completed on 27.11.2009. Shown cause notice for 04.12.2009 issued. 08.12.2009 Notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) alongwith show cause notice for 11.12.2009 issued as no compliance to earlier notices received. 11.12.2009 Present Sh. Hari Om Arora, Advocate alongwith Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate and Sh. Asim Attrey, CA on behalf of assessee. Reply dated 04.12.2009/11.12.2009 filed. Case discussed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjournments and very little information was submitted that is why the Assessing Officer was forced to frame the assessment u/s 144. After narrating the sequence of events how information was not filed and whatever was filed was not complete, the Assessing Officer made following observation in para 16 of his order. "16. From the facts adduced above, it is evident that the document seized/impounded remained unexplained and unverifiable and as such the transactions recorded in these documents are required to be added to the income returned. However, to be fair and reasonable, the undersigned is of the view that the assessment at the surrendered amount of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- will meet the end of justice. Therefore the income of the assessee, for the A.Y. 2008-09 under consideration, is assessed at Rs. 8,50,00,000/- as surrendered by the assessee company u/s u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act during search operation on 21.02.2008 and subsequently, reaffirmed after a period of more than one month on 24.03.2008 as against the returned income of Rs. 3,37,85,728/-. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 5,12,14,272/- (8,50,00,000-3,37,85,728) is added to the income returned. Accordingly, an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing to be made an inquiry if he considers the order to be erroneous he can pass the order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, i.e., enhance the assessment or modify the assessment, cancel the assessment and direct a fresh assessment. There is no statutory bar in making an office note. There is also no statutory bar on the Commissioner relying on the office note under section 263" Reading of these decisions clearly shows that there is no bar on the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer for revision of the order. This has to be particularly seen in the context of the conduct of the assessee which clearly shows that assessee did not fully cooperated in the assessment proceedings as observed earlier. Further, the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Rita Keshri (supra) where search was conducted in the premises of the assessee but assessee did not cooperated in the assessment proceedings and ultimately assessment was completed on whatever information was available and these orders were ultimately held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal quashed these revisionary orders. The following observations were made from para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order and has, by a very perfunctory approach, set aside the orders of the learned CIT. It has taken into account the materials which were noticed by the learned AO, but has refused to take into account the vital materials or aspects of the matter pointed out by the learned CIT which were not considered by the learned AO. In other words, the learned Tribunal has failed to attach due importance to the vital omissions indicated by the learned CIT. In such a situation, the two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the assesses are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The issues are indeed not concluded by findings of facts. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The superior Court of quasi-judicial authority should normally act with restraint while setting aside the impugned order with a view to remit the matter to the same authority or the Court, because such an order or remand sets at naught the entire effort made till then to resolve the dispute. The function of the appellate Court is to rectify the errors and the mistakes committed in the impugned order. An order of remand can be passed under limited circumstances so that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the stage of issuing of show cause notice, what is required is preliminary satisfaction of the Commissioner that the relevant assessment order is erroneous. A details investigation has to be made when the order is passed. Section 263 of the Act reads as under;- "Section 263 (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the [Assessing] Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment." 27. The provision clearly shows that there is no mandate for recording of satisfaction but what is required is that if the Commissioner considers that order is erroneous in so far as the same is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, then a show cause notice can be issued. The bare perusal of the assessment order shows tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that Ld. Commissioner has issued a show cause notice which is a verbatim copy of the proposal given by the Assessing Officer which has been done without examination and any application of his mind. As observed earlier at the stage of issuance of notice, detailed examination is not required. What is required is prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Commissioner that a particular assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We find that it is not totally correct that show cause notice is totally verbatim copy of the proposal. The first two paras of the show cause notice are not there in the proposal. Similarly paras 6, 7 & 8 of the notice are also not there in the proposal. Rest of the parts seems to be verbatim copy of the proposal but here again it has to be seen that these parts basically contain all the contents of the statements recorded during the search, copy of the letter of surrender by the company, details of various documents found during the search. Now these facts have been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by way of proposal but even they were examined otherwise the Ld. Commissioner has to quote these documents in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AN, 3RD FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQARE, KOLKATA - 700069 No. CIT-II/Kol/U/S.263/C-12/2011-12/9424 Darted 10.2.2012 To The Principal Officer M/s J. Thomas & Co. Pvt Ltd Nilhat House 11, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkara - 700001 Sub: Noticie u/s 263 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 in your case for Assessment Year 2007-08 fixation of hearing - matter regarding I have called for an examined the assessment record in your case for Assessment Year 2007-08. It appears that the order passed by the Assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. You are requested to appear before me either personally or through authorized representative in this regrd on 21.2.2012 at 2.00 p.m. Sd/- Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata -II, Kolkakta " The assessee filed certain replies before the Ld. Commissioner who did not agree with the same and ultimately passed the order u/s 263. On these facts the Tribunal observed that show cause notice shows that there was no reason whatsoever shown in the notice that how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the proceedings u/s 263 the Ld. Commissioner must call for the record and after examining the same record his satisfaction and then issue the notice. There is no quarrel with the proposition. However, we have already shown in the above noted paras how at the time of issue of notice the Ld. Commissioner has seen the records and then applied his mind to the extent it was required and recorded his satisfaction on the note put up by Addl Commissioner and notice was issued thereafter. Therefore clearly the facts in case before us are totally different and ratio of this decision is not applicable. 34. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. PVS Beedies Pvt Ltd, 237 ITR 13. This case was relied for the proposition that if the Assessing officer is not authorized to act under compulsion then how senior officers of the Department like Ld. Commissioner is expected to act under the compulsion of the Assessing officer. We are afraid this is totally misplaced. In the case of PVS Beedies Pvt Ltd (supra), the short issue was involved whether reopening is possible on the basis of audit objection and the Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether reopening is permissible after the audit party expresses an opinion on a question of law is now being considered by a larger Bench of this court. There can be no dispute that the audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment. Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. In view of that we hold that reopening of the case under section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under appeal is set aside to this extent. The above clearly show that there are no observation as mentioned by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and we fail to understand why this case was cited before us. 35. Next case relied on is the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in case of Jaswinder Singh v. CIT (supra). In that case the assessee was having income from own trucks and hired trucks and filed return of income. No books of accounts were produced, therefore assessment was completed u/s 144 and income was estimated. From the perusal of the assessment order the Ld. Commissioner noted that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. The VO later on submitted his report on 16.12.1980 in which the cost of construction was determined at Rs. 34,58,600/-. On these facts the Ld. Commissioner issued a show cause notice u/s 263 that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was mainly contended that the report was not available to the Assessing officer at the time of completion of assessment and therefore same would not constitute the record which can be examined by the Ld. Commissioner and in this regard reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Ganga Properties v. ITO, 118 ITR 447. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Act and judgment of Hon'ble High Court. Ultimately it was observed at page 62-63 of the report as under: "It, therefore, cannot be said, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, that the correct and settled legal position, with respect to the meaning of the word "record" till June 1 ,1988, was that it meant the record which was available to the Income-tax Officer at the time of passing of the assessment order. Further, we do not think that such a narrow interpretation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase while making assessment u/s 143(3) for Assessment Year 1995-96. the Assessing officer allowed cess paid on Green Tea Leave to the Govt. as business expenditure. Subsequently a proposal u/s 263 had been sent by the concerned Assessing officer to the Commissioner of Income-tax Department on the ground that while completing assessment of above mentioned order, the Assessing officer had allowed cess of Green Tea Leave paid to the Govt by the assessee-company as business expenditure by ignoring the fact that Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in case of Jorehaut Group Ltd v. Agricultural ITO (supra) wherein it was held that cess paid to the Govt was not deductible. On the basis of this proposal the Ld. Commissioner issued a show cause notice and later on after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the Assessing officer to add expenditure of cess paid by the assessee to the income of the assessee. On these facts Hon'ble High Court observed cess paid to the Green Tea Leave was already held to be allowable business expenditure by the Division Bench of the same Court in case of AFT Industries Ltd. v. CIT, and therefore revisionary order passed u/s 263 was quashed. Again w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29/- and the assessee's share @ 100% out of that total investment comes to Rs. 6,81,06,129/-. The source of investment of Rs. 6,81,06,129/- as per the agreements for the purchase of above properties was not fully disclosed to the department. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details of the immovable properties purchased/sold/constructed together with source thereof alongwith advances received or paid against such properties. Though no details of the properties purchased/sold during the year were furnished but some of the details of such properties purchased were furnished as per his letters dated nil received on 06.03.09, 09.03.09,20.03.09 etc. As per these letters, the assessee informed that the invested has been made out of the sale proceeds of land. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 89,48,200/- was paid by the other partner having 50% share out of its own funds. The assessee company through its director Sh. Suresh Khanna also filed an affidavit certifying therein that the 50% share of investment has been made by the other partner. However, no source of investment by the other partner having 50% share was explained. Further, as stated s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le in the hands of the assessee and if they are surrendered by the assessee for being taxed, then the orders passed by the assessing authority will be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. One may surrender a given income with an ulterior motive. The duty of the assessing authority in such a case is to make a full inquiry and satisfy himself that the income surrendered was, in fact, earned by the assessee. No doubt Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Corporation Ltd (supra), has held that if the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible legal views, then order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. This was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd (supra) but in the case of Max India Ltd (supra) the facts were regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The meaning of profits in section 80HHC was open to two interpretations which were amended later on by 2005 amendment and therefore, the Court observed that since Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view, the order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. But in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is that if the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority, then such order cannot be revised. The Ld. counsel had raised strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aerens Infrastructure and Technology Ltd v. CIT (supra). In this case, block assessment u/s 158BC was made and assessee had filed appeal in respect of various additions. Later on, the Commissioner passed an order u/s 263 with regard to the same block assessment order. An appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai 256 ITR 440 (Mad.) to show that show cause notice itself would be without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble High Court did not accept this by observing as under:- "We feel that the decision of the Madras High Court would not be of any help to the petitioner. In the said decision, the revision had been held to be invalid as the subject-matter of the revision was the same as that of the pending appeal. Therefore, it does not hold that in all cases, and, particularly where the issues in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved as under:- "We may refer to the amendment made in section 263 of the Income tax Act by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988. The relevant part thereof for the present case is as under: "Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section, - ...... (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 June 1, 1988, the powers of the 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." The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. Accordingly, even in respect of the aforesaid three items, the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to them because the same had not been considered and decided in the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 132(4) during search. *Although stated in letter dated 21.02.2008 that 8.50 Cr. Is for two years no bifurcation given nor shown in return of income. DEEPAK CHAUHAN Particulars A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2007-08 Income Declared During Search NIL NIL Income Shown in Return of Income 3,01,800/- 2,66,800/- Income Assessed by A.O. 4,01,800/- 3,46,800/- REMARKS *Addition of 1,00,000/- on a/c of low household withdrawals. * Addition of 80,000/- on a/c of low household withdrawals. RUPINDERDEEP SINGH Particulars A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2007-08 Income Declared During Search NIL NIL Income Shown in Return of Income 4,73,412/- 5,79,978/- Income Assessed by A.O. 5,89,410/- 6,93,980/- REMARKS *Addition of 1,16,000/-on a/c of low household withdrawals. * Addition of 1,14,000/- on a/c of low household withdrawals. SURESH KUMAR KHANNA Particulars A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2006-07 Income Declared During Search NIL NIL NIL Income Shown in Return of Income 11,24,450/- 4,21,315/- 26,81,837/- Income Assessed by A.O. 17,10,620/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn as surrendered income. He gave evasive reply and submitted that this would be part of income of six years, however, no document is available in this regard. Similar is the situation with Shri Rupinderdeep Singh and Shri Deepak Chauhan. As far as the case of Shri Harinder Singh is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed copy of the assessment order in case of Shri Harinder Singh vide letter dated 6.11.2013. The assessment order clearly shows that assessee had declared income from business. In this case the sum of Rs. 2,98,39,000/- has been added by way of addition and same did not form part of the returned income. Therefore, this is wrong to say that assessee has offered the surrendered income in various hands. 49. Through last contention that assessee has submitted various details before the Assessing Officer and Commissioner which have not been examined by the Commissioner and, therefore, the revisionary order has been passed without application of mind. We find no force in this contention. Firstly, the Ld. Counsel could not point out that which details have been filed which have not been considered. In fact, some details have been filed before us vide letter d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B No. 121 600 sq. yd @ Rs. 9600 per sq. yd. F- 157 Ayali Trading & Profit in declared income `A-9 (R-2) 16-21 22 PB No. 50 para 5 & Deepak PB No. 121 08.03.07 1475 sq yd. @ Rs. 9800/- sq. yd. ½ share in Deepak and sold at profit and part of declared income A-12(R-2) 16-21 23 PB No. 50 para 7 1 txn. & in Deepak PB No. 122 10.01.08 500 sq. yd @ Rs. 13000/- per sq. yd. Only trading A-12 (R-2) 11-15 PB No. 50 Para.7 & in Deepak PB No. 122 500 sq. yd @ Rs. 14750/- A-13(R-2) 44-49 23-24 21.08.07 256.66 sq yd. B-56 Ayali Kalan A-13 (R-2) 26-27 24 256.66 sq.yd. @ Rs. 7470 A-13(R-2) 14-19 24-25 PB No. 50-51 para. 8 07.11.07 256.66 sq. yd. @ 8100/- A-15 (R-2)34-39 25 PB No. 51 para. 9 & in Deepak PB No. 122 01.01.08 500 sq yds. @ 7500/- pe sq.yd. E-X85 at Ayalli trading profit r shown A-19 (R-2)2-7 25 PB No. 51 para 10 19.02.08 200 sq. yds @ 2500/- per sq. yd. plot no. M-135 M-135 A-22 (R-2) 26 In Deepak PB GPA 1-3, 17-20 No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ource of which has not been explained and A.O. has also not taken cognizance of the above advance of Rs. 20 lac. Otherwise also investment in 12 Bighe of land i.e. 3 Acres of land @ Rs. 1.35 per acre comes to Rs. 4.05 Cr. This according to the above agreement was to be registered on 30.07.2007 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09. Neither any addition on account of investment of Rs. 4.05 Cr. Of the above property has been made in A.Y. 2008-09 nor any inquiries from different quarters including the Registrar of properties/Tehsildar and sellers have been made by the A.O. in this regard. Further, payment of Rs. 26 lac made on 14.05.2007 as noted on the backside of the above document, has not been examined by the A.O. Annexure No. A-1(R-2), Page No. 48-50: These documents are photocopy of an agreement dated 30.11.2004. AR has submitted that buyer persons were agents of M/s U-LIKE Promoters(P) Ltd., New Delhi and the payments so made an the deal has been owned by the New Delhi Company vide their letter dated 06.03.2009 written and submitted to ACIT, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana and as such there was neither any investment nor infringement of provisions of section 40A(3). No doubt a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding sale and purchase of land at Village Jhande and for other out of books trading commission income, assessee had compiled a net income figure which was incorporated in the regular books of accounts on a net basis and admittedly no item-wise details have been provided by the Auditors in the Audit Report. From the above, it is evident that assessee is not in a position to explain the source of advance and investment made in the above properties which falls in the period relevant not only to A.Y. 2008-09; the year under consideration but also to A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08. A.O. has not examined this aspect. In respect of disallowances made u/s 40A(3), A.O. has not verified the correctness and genuineness of the assessee's claim whether aforesaid Village was not served by any bank or whether provisions of section 40A(3) were applicable. Further, as per nothings given on backside of above document, payment of Rs. 50 lac has also been made on 27.02.2006 totalling Rs. 90 lac which has also not been examined. Similarly, the payments of Rs. 20,43,800/- and Rs. 15,43,782/- in the names of Sh. Bhupinder Sigh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh and Sh. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh r....