TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities and courts, requires to be cancelled. 4. That the notice, initiation and subsequent proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law, without jurisdiction and requires to be cancelled. 5. That the notice u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and is in total disregard to the provisions of C air-5-ferXIV of the IT Act, 1961. 6. That the entire reassessment proceedings violate the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 259 ITR 19 for 148 proceedings. 7. That the authorities below erred in making addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-as unexplained income. 8. That the addition has been made contrary to the Board Instruction dated 10th March, 2003 vide F.No.286/2/2003/IT(Inv) and without any cogent evidence in support of the addition. 9. The appellant denies the liabilities of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. Further prays that interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 10. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 11. Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority, the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation assessee declared a sum of Rs. 1crore for assessment year under consideration to cover the entries in the loose sheet as well as miscellaneous issue such as investment, expenditure etc. Assessee submitted the disclosure in writing vide letter dated 17/09/2010 under section 132(4) of the Act, which is reproduced by Ld.AO in assessment order. 2.5. Ld.AO in assessment order refers to the statement recorded by the investigation wing of assessee on 24/09/2010 wherein she stated that sources of the investments appearing in the seized documents were out of her undisclosed an unaccounted income earned by her during the financial year 2009-10, and that, she invested such amount in shares and loans and advances in cash as mentioned in the document seized. Ld.AO has reproduce the statement recorded by assessee in the assessment order and has also reproduced the typed document seized being A1/DC at page 33. In the paper book filed by assessee on 24/07/2018 the seized documents at page 32 is placed. 2.6. Before Ld.AO, assessee subsequently changed her stand by submitting that said income of Rs. 1Cr, though was declared u/s.132(4) for year under consideration, however belonged to as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered for A.Y.2011-12 instead of A.Y.2010-11. She has also told that the amount of one crore should not be assessed for A.Y.2010-11". 9. Now the appellant is taking a stand that that the assessment was wrong and a notice u/s 153C should have been issued. This cannot be the purpose of allowing additional grounds of appeal. A legal ground which has never been raised before Assessing Officer can be raised before the CIT(A) if it goes to the root of the matter. But it cannot mean to say that a ground conceded before Assessing Officer can still be raised before the CIT(A). Having conceded that she has no objection with proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act and having participated in all the assessment proceedings, it appears that the appellant has a change of mind later. It cannot be permissible now at the appellate stage and this ground of appeal deserves to be rejected on this reasoning too." Ld.CIT(A) thus rejected appeal filed by assessee. Aggrieved by order passed by Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 4. Ld.AR submitted that, Ground No. 1-3 are general in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. 5. Ground No. 4-6 is on legal issue raised by as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovides that, the documents found in possession or control of any person in course of search should be considered to be belonging to that person. 5.3. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that, it was during the course of investigation by the DDIT that assessee took the onus of the documents relating to her by way of disclosure under section 132(4) of the Act on 17/09/2010. On the basis of such disclosure notice under section 131 was issued to assessee. Thus, the only recourse for Ld.AO to consider these documents in the hands of assessee was to initiate reassessment proceedings. He submitted that, statement recorded by DDIT of assessee in respect of A1/DC at page 32&33 categorically establishes that she agreed to the investments mentioned therein to be made by her with the help of husband. Ld.Sr.DR, primarily submitted that there was no panchanam drawn based on the statement of assessee that provisions of 153A/C could be initiated. He also submitted that assessee was not covered under search action. Secondly he submitted that the DDIT(Inv.) disclosure by assessee u/s132(4) of the Act, and statement recorded by DIT that was forwarded to Ld.AO. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that, it was upon assessee owning t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bannalal Jat Constructions (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT(supra), the disclosure made by assessee was based on certain documents admitted to be related to assessee suo moto, and having accepted the disclosure by revenue, in light of statement recorded under section 131, assessee could not have changed her stand. 5.7. He also submitted that the searched person having disowned the documents, and assessee suo moto declaring income for assessment year 2010-11, considering such documents, establishes the admission in the statement. Assessee did not have any valid reason to shift the disclosure to assessment year 2011-12. He supported the addition made for year under consideration. 6. We have perused the record and submissions advanced by both sides. Assessee filed her original return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 9,33,970/-. The assessment year involved in the present case is 2010-11. And notice u/s 147 was issued to assessee on 28/8/2012. 6.1. There was a search under section 132 of the Act, in case of M/s. Bharat Mines and Minerals on 19/07/2010. The search also covered Sri.Lakshmipat Dudhoria, being husband of assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see failed to include the disclosure made as per statement recorded in the return filed for year under consideration. It is apparently clear that the reopening notice has been issued subsequent to the filing of return for year under consideration by assessee. 6.5. We therefore, reject the grounds raised by assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. Accordingly Grounds, 1-6 and 8 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 7. Ground No. 7 has been raised by assessee challenging the addition of Rs. 1 Crore as unexplained income. 7.1 We note that asseseee had raised this issue before Ld.CIT(A). However it has not been decided by Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly we deem it proper to remand this issue back to Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue alleged in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 6th Nov, 2020 ============= Document 1 FROM: Smt.SARITA DUDHERIA W/o Sri.Laxmipat Dudheria # 20, Vasavi Plaza, 2nd Floor D.V.G. Road, Basavangudi, BANGALORE 560004 TO: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV) U....