TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,10)000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of loans received by the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming partly to the extent of Rs. 79,137 addition of Rs. 9,01,407 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 towards alleged unexplained amount of income tax challans paid on behalf of the clients of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13,400 made by the assessing officer under the head income from House Property'. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income fax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Municipal Tax of Rs. 1433 claimed by the appellant against income from house property at Dabagardens, 6. The 'earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,012 made by the assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the return of income on 30.04.2012, thereby complied with the terms and conditions of the issue of notice. The assessee has complied with the notice and intent and purpose of issue of notice was served. The assessee has not raised any objection before the AO on receipt of the notice. The assessee did not make any protest for the minor defects in the said notice, such as non-striking off irrelevant columns in the said notice. No injustice or confusion was caused to the assessee by non striking of irrelevant columns. Therefore, we are of the opinion that having filed the return of income non- striking of irrelevant columns cannot render the notice as invalid. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1983) 13 Taxman 0120. In the case relied up on by the assessee, on receipt of the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income in his individual capacity under protest. The Income Tax Officer informed the assessee that the notice u/s 148 dated 29.09.62 was related to HUF, hence he should file the return in the capacity of HUF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnical or venial defects in this regard." 6.3 Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Durga Enterprises reported in (2014) 44 Taxman 442 held that even if period for furnishing return of income was not specified in notice u/s 148, but assessee has participated in reassessment proceedings, such assessment is valid. Similarly Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT, Aligarh Vs. Shyam Cold Storage (31 taxmann.com 358) held that having participated in the reassessment proceedings without raising any objection, the assessment held to be valid. For the sake of clarity and convenience we extract the relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble High court hereunder: "8. Section 292B has been enacted with a view to overcome purely technical objection coming in the way of validity of assessment proceedings etc. It deals with curable defects in the proceedings. The idea is that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality cause of justice should prevail. No party can claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of some slip of pen, or omission causing no prejudice to anyone. The section is intended to ensure that an inconsequential t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has understood the intention and purpose of issue of notice and not filed the objections before the AO/CIT(A) and filed the return of income complying with the terms and conditions of the notice. Having complied with the notice issued u/s 148, the intent and purpose of the notice issued was served and there is no injustice caused to the assessee. No material was placed to show that the assessee was misled in any manner for not specifically striking the irrelevant columns. Therefore, we hold that the notice issued by the AO is valid and the same is upheld. This ground is raised by the assessee for the A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 on identical facts and the appeals of the assessee on this ground for the A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 are dismissed. 7. Ground No.1 and 8 of original grounds filed along with appeal memo are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 8. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR did not press Ground Nos.4,5 and 6, hence ground Nos. 4,5 and 6 are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No.2 is related to the addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act towards unexplained amounts of loans received by the assessee. The assessee ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year u/s 69A of I.T.Act. It has come to the notice of the IT Department that certain copies of challans, claims of taxes, filed in the return of income on various dates relating to the various assesses are ingenuine and not matching with the information in OLTAS. The department observed that such returns were filed by the assessee who happens to be income tax practitioner. The department has conducted enquiries with the Syndicate Bank and the counter foils furnished in the returns and the challans found to be fake challans. Therefore, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the office premises of N.V.Vasantha Rao, the assessee. During the course of survey, rubber stamps of Syndicate Bank and the counterfoils of fake challans were found in the assessee's premises. The assessee in the statement dated 22.02.2012 has accepted the fact of collecting the money from the clients but not depositing the same in the Government account. Instead he used the money and issued the fake challan counter foils and has taken the sole responsibility for indulging in the fraudulent activity, in response to question No.7 of the statement. The AO quantified such amount at Rs. 9,01,407/- and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2011-12 in the place of the addition of Rs. 9,01,403/- in all years Assessment Year Addition u/s 69A 2007-08 79,137/- 2008-09 4,27,424/- 2009-10 1,73,792/- 2010-11 18,514/- 2011-12 7,000/- 10.2 During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the department has filed criminal case against the assessee before the Hon'ble Court stating that the said sums belonged to Government and if the department wins the case, the assessee is required to deposit the entire amount in the Govt. account in which case, the assessee would be in double jeopardy because he will have to remit the whole amount which is treated as his income. Therefore, argued that the department cannot be allowed to have both i.e. refund of the amount if it wins the case in the court of law and also tax the same as income. Alternatively, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO made the addition of Rs. 9,01,407/- out of which on reconciliation, a sum of Rs. 1,48,666/- was tallied with OLTAS. Therefore requested to reduce the amount of Rs. 1,48,666/- from various assessment years. 10.3 On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 10.4 We have heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Plain reading of section 69A shows that if the assessee found to be the owner of the money for which the assessee fails explain the source the same required to be taxed u/s 69A of I.T. act. In this case it is undisputed fact that money was belonged to the clients of the assessee and the assessee required to deposit in the Government account or to return the same to the clients. The money was received by the assessee in the fiduciary capacity on behalf of clients towards the payment of taxes, There is no evidence brought on record by the AO to establish that the right of recovery by the clients or by the Government has been waived. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the monies received by the assessee on behalf of the clients for payment of taxes to be treated as money belonged to the clients or belonged to the Income Tax Department and the same cannot be brought to tax as income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Des Raj Nagpal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 170 TTJ 0037 (Asr) and also the manual of Office Procedure Volume II. 13.2 On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that, the assessee has responded to the notices, filed part information and filed letters seeking adjournments, hence the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 in the manner laid down u/s 144 of I.T.Act. Therefore, argued that the AO has rightly passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Even otherwise, it is mere technical defect which cannot make the assessment invalid as per section 292B of the IT Act. 13.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the AO had issued notice u/s 147 and in response to the notice issued, the assessee filed revised return of income. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) calling for the information and the assessee responded to the notices issued u/s 143(2) seeking adjournments. The AO granted the adjournments as required by the assessee and the assessee continuously sought adjournments without furnishing the complete information. The AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income. Hence the coordinate bench held that the assessment order required to be passed u/s 144. In the instant case the AO has conducted the survey and collected the information which has been confronted with the assessee. The assessee has filed the return of income as per books and the AO has given sufficient opportunity and no injustice was caused to the assessee. In the case law the AO has not issued any show cause notice, and in the assessee's case the AO has issued show cause notice with proposed additions. Therefore, the facts of the case law relied upon by the Ld.AR are distinguishable and not applicable in the assessee's case. Further framing the assessment u/s 143(3) instead of 144 is mere technical error and curable mistake u/s 292B. Therefore, we uphold the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground. 14.0. The next issue is addition on account of cash credit. For the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12, the assessee has introduced cash credits as per the details given below : 2008-09 Rs.2,23,760/- 2009-10 Rs.2,15,009/- 2010-11 Rs.4,49,600/- 2011-12 Rs.9,27,250/- During the assessment proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- u/s 69A of I.T.Act in respect of the amounts collected from the clients towards income tax, but not deposited the same in the Government account. This issue has been discussed in detail for the assessment year 2007-08 and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside holding that the said amount cannot be treated as income, since the said sum belonged to the clients. Accordingly the appeals of the assessee are allowed on this ground for the A.Ys 2008-09 to 2011-12. 16.0. Ground No.4 is related to the adhoc disallowance of expenditure. This issue is involved for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 as per the details given hereunder: Assessment Year Addition made 2008-09 34,316/- 2009-10 48,929/- 2010-11 55,200/- 2011-12 48,262/- 17.0. The AO disallowed 15% of expenditure on adhoc basis for want of details and on appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance for assessee's failure to submit the explanation. 17.1. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that for the assessment year 2010-11, expenditure included chit loss of 84,424/- and argued that no estimated disallowance is called for on chit loss. Similarly he also argued that adhoc di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, Vizianagaram on 31.03.2008 and declared the value of the land at Rs. 54,800/- in the Balance Sheet. However, in the statement recorded on 22.02.2012, the assessee admitted the value of site at Rs. 1,60,000/-. The assessee has not offered the difference as income in the assessment year under consideration and did not explain the source of the difference amount. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs. 1,05,200/- representing the difference amount of the actual value and the value declared in the balance sheet as income. Before the Ld.CIT(A) also, the assessee did not submit any explanation, therefore, the addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 19.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the assessee did not submit any explanation except stating that the actual value was of Rs. 50,535/-. In the instant case, the assessee has stated that the value of land was Rs. 1,60,000/- but admitted only Rs. 54,800/- in the Balance Sheet. The assessee filed sale deed dated 04.12.2007 which is registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Nellimarla and as per the sale deed, the actual consideration paid was Rs. 50,000/-. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been reduced to the form of documents, then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to section 92, once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of section 91, then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/varying the terms of a document can be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear, then in the instant case, ostensible sale considerationdisclosed in the sale deed had to be accepted and it could not be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the registered sale deed was received by the vendors and deserved to be added to the gross income of the assessee. [Para 4]." In the instant case the sale deed was registered for Rs. 50000/- and no other evidence ....