TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there is a delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee explained the reasons for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation of delay of 81 days. The Ld Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) submitted that no proper notice was issued and served on the assessee. Further, the assessee was aware of the appellate order only when consequential order has been intimated to the assessee. The assessee has filed his affidavit as follows: "1......... 2. The appellant is not well educated and do not have any knowledge about the Income Tax Law procedures. On receipt of the order he thought that the appeal was finalized in favour of the appellant and did not even consult his authorized representative due to lack of sufficient knowledge. Later when the Department has informed that he need to pay the entire demand raised along with interest, he came to understand that the appeal was dismissed. He immediately approached Authorized Representative who has suggested for further appeal to the Tribunal. Hence the delay is caused due to the unawa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t merely stated that it is shown as sundry Debtors in the balance sheet which is representing the investment. The Ld. AO considered the reply given by the assessee is not acceptable as it is only an afterthought of the assessee to escape tax liabilities and treated it as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee's Representative made written submissions online to the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) found that the submissions made by the assessee that the investment of Rs. 25 lakhs in the affidavit was made for enabling the sanction of loan by banks to the related parties where the assessee stood as a guarantor. The Ld. AR submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the affidavit was made only for the bank purposes and solely for taking the loan by the company. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issues are: (i) Legal validity of the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not be made and the assessment could not be framed U/s. 153A of the Act. The case law relied on by the Ld. AR in Mr. Trilok Chand Chaudhary vs. ACIT (supra) by the Coordinate Bench of the Delhi, wherein it was held that separate search warrant has been issued in the case of the assessee as well as in the case of other party and where the Assessing Officer has used the material found in the case of the other party in the assessment made U/s. 153A of the Act is not permitted in view of the express provision of the law. Similarly, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Smt. Shivani Mahajan [ITA No.5585/Del/2015, dated 19/3/2019] relied on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and held that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized and not the material found in the search of any other person. Respectfully following the above precedents, we are of the considered view that the assessment made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities U/s. 153A of the Act is not valid in law and therefore considered as void-ab-initio. Therefore, we are inclined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../1/2017 in the case of Nexus Group. Consequently, the warrant was executed in the name of the assessee and search and seizure operation was carried out in the assessee's premises. Pursuant to the search and seizure operation the case was centralized with Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry from the erstwhile jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-1, Bhimavaram vide order U/s. 127(2)(a) of the Act passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry in F.No. 62/Juris./CIT/RJY/2017-18, dated 28/8/2017. Accordingly, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 16/02/2018 and served on the assessee on 22/2/2018. In response, the assessee requested to treat the return of income filed on 27/01/2018 as return filed in response to notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25/05/2018 and served on the assessee on 31/5/2018. A detailed questionnaire was also issued U/s. 142(1) of the Act on 13/8/2018 and the same was served on the assessee. In response the assessee appeared and furnished the details / information called for. During the search and seizure operation 2250.41 gms of Gold Jewellery was found and out of that 400.99 gms was seized from the premises of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT] Instruction No. 1916, dated 11/5/1994 allowed 1600.00 gms of Gold Jewellery and directed the Ld. AO to treat the balance of 222.21 gms of Gold Jewellery as unexplained. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also found that the assessee could not produce any cost details pertaining to the plotting of land and directed the Ld. AO to treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 23,71,000/- as income of the assessee. Similarly, since the interest income of Rs. 4,34,310/- was not disclosed in the hands of the wife of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) directed the Ld. AO to consider the entire sum as income in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) would have considered that the appellant right in the statement given u/s. 132(4) deposed that the gold found belong to himself, his wife and daughter staying abroad and also belonging to other relatives who are residing along with him and therefore would ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the Board's Instruction No. 1916, dated 11/5/1994 and has allowed the Gold in the possession of the assessee to an extent of 1600 gms in accordance with the family members in the premises of the assessee. The Assessee's Representative could not substantiate with evidence that the balance of 222.21 Gms of Gold Jewellery belongs to the granddaughter of the assessee who had kept their jewellery in the assessee's premises. Neither the Ld. AR produced any copies of bills for claiming the jewellery being purchased by the assessee. In the absence of any material evidence to substantiate the holding of addition gold in the premises of the assessee we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly given the benefit of Board's Instruction (supra) and accordingly treated the balance gold of 222.21 gms as unexplained. We are therefore inclined not to interfere in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 17. With respect to Ground No.5 regarding sale consideration of plots of Rs. 23,71,000/- considered by the Ld. AO as income of the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the agricu....