TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) r.w.s. 263 of the I.T. Act. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common and consolidated order. Brief facts of the case leading to these appeals are as under: 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of seed production and also deriving income from lease rentals and renewable power generation. There was a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act in the case of the assessee's group of industries on 13.03.2007. Consequent to the search, a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee calling for various details. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee appeared and furnished the required information. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2006-07, the AO observed that the assessee has purchased land sites at Ibrahimbagh, Hyderabad, at Kandlakoya, Hyderabad and also at Sholinganallur, Chennai and that the assessee has made payments in cash also over and above the registered value of the lands. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee admitted that the cash payments for the purchase of the above lands are all out of its unaccounted income from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,68,48,000 returned/surrendered by the assessee as income for the A.Y 2007-08 is to be reduced from the income assessed, since the same has been added as the income for the A.Y 2006-07. Similarly, he also reduced the sum of Rs. 1,38,60,000 shown by the assessee as income for the A.Y 2007-08 towards unaccounted investments for acquiring land at Sholinganallur (Chennai). The assessment order was accordingly rectified. 3. Subsequently, the CIT, u/s 263 of the Act, perused the assessment order and also the subsequent rectification order and observed that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO has not considered that the assessee has also claimed profit from the sale of carbon credit as the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, though the said profit is not derived from the industrial undertaking. He further observed that during the assessment proceedings for the A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08, the assessee has explained the source of unaccounted investments as the income from unaccounted sale of remnant seeds and though the assessee has offered a sum of Rs. 2,07,32,443 as income from unaccounted sale of remnant seeds for the A.Y 2007-08, since the assessee has not made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the AO has held that the entire investment in land was made during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2006- 07 itself, and since the assessee has offered the income from the sale of remnant seeds in the return of income for A.Y 2007-08 as well, not reducing the same from the assessed income for A.Y 2007-08 results in nothing but double addition which was rightly rectified by the AO during the 154 proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel of the assessee, the revision order is not sustainable. The assessee has also taken a ground of appeal No.2 that the order passed u/s 263 is erroneous and illegal as the learned CIT has passed a single order revising both the order u/s 143(3) and order u/s 154 passed by the AO. According to him, the learned CIT ought to have considered the facts of each of the order separately and passed independent orders. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below on the maintainability of the combined order of the CIT and also on the merits of the said order. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the CIT has revised the order u/s 143(3) and also u/s 154 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not made any adjustments towards unaccounted investments. It is submitted that the assessee has offered the unaccounted income as the source for investments in land in financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 relevant to A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively but since the AO has treated the entire investment as made in the A.Y 2006-07 itself, not making any adjustment to the unaccounted income from the sale of remnant seeds in the A.Y 2007-08 also, will result in double taxation. The assessee has also filed a copy of the assessment order for A.Y 2006-07 wherein at page 10 of the assessment order, the AO has observed that the unaccounted investments in land made by the assessee is quantified during the year 2005-06 relevant to the A.Y 2006-07, since the assessee company has paid the cash and got the land registered during this A.Y. From the assessment order for the A.Y 2006-07, it is seen that the assessee has admitted a sum of Rs. 2,77,52,000 towards undisclosed cash payment in the return of income filed by it and the AO has made a further addition of Rs. 2,92,60,012 as unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the I.T Act. As seen from the table reproduced above from the CIT's order u/s 263, ....