AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to the Revenue the case of assessee was also covered by it. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29/10/2014, in response to which the assessee submitted their return of income. Subsequently notice under section 143(2) and a notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 12/12/2014. 3. Learned AO concluded the assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act in respect of Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 201213 and under section 143(3) of the Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14 by making the following additions:- i. Rs. 3,41,619/-for the assessment year 2010-11; ii. Rs. 1,80,000/-for the assessment year 2011-12; iii. Rs. 21,00,876/- for the assessment year 2012-13; and iv. Rs. 1,85,03,206/-for assessment year 2013-14 4. In respect of Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13, the contention of the assessee is two-fold. Firstly, the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on Vatika group of cases and in that process search was carried out at 2 lockers held in the name of the assessee at a Metropolis Vault Private Limited;the premises of Metropolis Vault Private Limited was subjected to sear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... day before the search on 16/1/2013 and a verification from the Department proved that no such wealth tax returns were filed by the assessee on that date. Ld. DR, therefore, submitted that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast on him under the provisions of section 132(4 A) of the Act and accordingly the addition is justified. 8. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. For proper appreciation of the first contention of the assessee that no proceedings were initiated under section 132(1) of the Act against the assessee and, therefore, the search of lockers of the assessee was beyond jurisdiction under section 132(1) of the Act inasmuch as the said action could not have been adopted against the assessee or that the assessee is not a person in whose case such section 132(1) of the Act has been initiated leading to the consequence that the issuance of notice under section 153A of the Act is bad under law is concerned, it is necessary for us to look into the order under section 133 (2) in respect of locker nos. 722 and 875 at Metropolis Vault Private Limited and the Punchnama prepared at the time of operation of locker No. 722 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no proper search in this matter by initiating the proceedings under section 132(1) of the Act and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act against the assessee is bad under law. Stretching the logic to the extent of leading to absurd inferences or attributing redundancy to the wisdom of legislature is not permissible. It is something different to argue that nothing incriminating was found during the search and, therefore, it is not open for the learned Assessing Officer to make any addition qua the assessee. We, therefore, reject the first contention of the assessee. 11. Now coming to the 2nd limb of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee, there is no dispute that by the date of search, the assessee had already filed the returns of income relating to the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 by 30/7/2010, 11/7/2011, and 31/8/2012 respectively, and the due date for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was 30/9/2011, 30/9/2012 and 30/9/2013 respectively. Further, it is also not in dispute that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued till date of search in respect of any of these years. It could, therefore, be see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the firstaddition, case of the assessee is that he had let out the house property at Western Avenue, Sainik form, New Delhi and received a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs towards rent. When called upon to substantiate his claim, assessee produced the copy of rent agreement with one Mr Gurinder Singh, resident of village and post office Bahadurgarh, Patiala district of Punjab. Learned Assessing officer noted that such an agreement of rent does not bear any signature of Mr Gurinder Singh.Assessee was asked to explain and verify the cash receipt of rental income by producing confirmation from the tenant and also the PAN and ITR of the tenant. Reply of the assessee was that the property was vacated by the tenant about 2 years back and the lessee was not the interactingwith him and, therefore, he cannot arrange the details required of him. In the circumstances, having no material substantiating the claim of the assessee on record, Ld. Assessing officer proceeded to treat the income from house property offered by the assessee as 'income from other sources' and denied the standard deduction of 30% claimed by the assessee. 16. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also assessee did not produce any evidence whatsoeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance of Section 153A of the Act and in fact there were no search proceedings held on the assessee.Assessee, therefore, preferred this appeal both on law as well as on facts. 22. In so far as the validity of the search is concerned, as a matter of fact, learned CIT(A) on verification of assessment record found that on a consolidated proposal, learned AO sought the approval of the Addl. CIT and the clubbing of the draft assessment order for AY 2013-14 appears to be a bonafide mistake. Since there were no directions issued by the Addl. CIT to AO to complete the assessment order for AY 2013-14 in any particular manner, there was no prejudice to the assessee by the action of the AO in submitting a draft order to Addl. CIT for approval. On this aspect, we do not find any reason to take a different view. 23. The other contention raised before us is that for this year the assessee filed their return of income on 30.9.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 13,17,925/- and the due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was 30.9.2014. it is submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued till 20.9.2014 beyond the period provided u/s 143(2) of the Act. 24. Learned AR submitted that the servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished."] 28. It is, therefore, clear that in this matter, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is issued beyond the period allowed for such purpose and was issued on 29.10.2014 as against the due date for issuance of notice. It is, therefore, clear that such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harsingar Gutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is m....