TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may like to mention that neither anybody represented on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment has been moved by the assessee despite notifying for the hearing of the appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal accordingly, the appeal was heard ex-parte qua, the assessee after hearing arguments of Revenue. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a cash of Rs. 1,72,67,000/- was found seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at the premises of Shri Rajiv Gulati. After following due process of law, the said amount was requisitioned by the Income Tax Department. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,72,67,000/-, the amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- was admitted by the assessee as belonging to him during survey proceedings which were conducted at the premises of the assessee. 3.1 But later, on assessee did not offer the amount in the return of income and the cheques given during the course of survey against tax payments were also dishonoured. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 1.3 crores in the case of the assessee on protective basis and substantive addition was ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined cash of Rs. 1.30 Crore as his income, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in retaining the addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. She submitted that even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee took a ground that this income was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. 5. We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has mentioned that first appellate authority in the case of Sh. Rajiv Gulati has upheld addition of Rs. 1.30 cores in respect of cash of Rs. 1.30 crores seized from him and rejected the contention of the assessee (Sh. Tajender Kakkar) that said cash belonged to him. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced as under: 5.10 During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant's AR has also submitted a copy of order passed by Id. CIT(A) in the case of Sh. Rajeev Gulati, upon whom search was conducted by DRI, Mumbai and cash amounting to Rs. 1,72,67,000/- was found in his premises. In his case, CIT(A)-XXIV vide his appeal order dated 25.03.2014 in appeal no. 101/13-14 passed in the case of Sh. Rajeev Gulati, upon whom search was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound in possession of the appellant. It is seen that the appellant has already owned up an amount of Rs. 42,67,000/-as his business income and also disclosed in his return of income filed on 15.10.2010 and before initiation of proceedings u/s.153 A. Further, Statements given by the appellant as well as by Shri Tajender Kakkar before the income tax authorities for impugned sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are unreliable and far from truth. I fully endorse the view of the assessing officer that due to inconsistencies in the statements of the appellant as well as that of Shri Tajender Kakkar, these statements are after thought statements with intention to escape tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on said amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/-.It is noticed that a survey action u/s.133 A was taken on 11.12.2010 against said Shri Tajender Kakkar. Though he admitted that he has deposited Rs. 1,30,00,000/- with the appellant and the said sum was earned during the F. Y. 2009 - 10 and has voluntarily offered Rs. 1,40,00,000/- as his undisclosed income for assessment year: 2010-11 (even though he filed his return of income for assessment year : 2010 - 11 u/s. 139(1) on 16.07.2010 declaring income of Rs. 2,52,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure land. On the basis of these incriminating documents, appellant once again categorically clarified in his statement that he had earned some cash income from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 which was not reflected in his regular books and as he was not in a position to explain the source of this income, he voluntarily offered to surrender Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, which included Rs. 1.3 Crores cash found at the premises of Sh. Rajeev Gulati. However, the appellant, retracted from his promises made in the statement before survey authorities that he will submit a detailed working of the manner in which such income amounting to Rs. 1.3 Crores was earned in cash. Even after letter issued to him by AO, the appellant did not come forward to submit such details. As per the findings given in the order of CIT(A) in the case of Sh. Rajeev Gulati, which have been reproduced above, the fact that the appellant Sh. Tajinder Kakkar later on filed his return of income for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) on 16.07.2010 declaring income of just Rs. 2,52,790/- only and issued 3 post dated cheques of Rs. 14,00,000/- each, but later on failed to file any revised return of income disclosing undisclosed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elled. 24/12/1971 RECTIFICATION SECTION 119(2)(b),, SECTION 154 Where the same income as assessed, as a protective measure in the hands of more than one assessee or as the income of more than one assessment year, and one or more of these protective assessments needs to be cancelled as a result of some of the relevant assessments having become final and conclusive it has been the practice of the IT Department to cancel the redundant assessments under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, treating these as involving mistakes apparent from the records. This is being done by the ITOs either suomotu or on applications made by assessee. Sometime, it is no possible to take action under s. 154 in such cases because of the operation of the time limit laid down sub-s. (7) of s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. Since the operation of this time limit causes genuine hardships to the affected assessees, the CBDT in exercise of the powers vested in them under cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 119 of the IT Act, 1961, hereby authorises the ITOs to take action under s. 154 or to admit or dispose of on merits applications under s. 154 filed by assessees seeking relief, for cancelling suc....