TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 24,25,000/- on erroneous assumption of facts and law. 2. BECAUSE the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is wholly erroneous as no matching assets or cash was found from the possession of the appellant. 3. BECAUSE the income shown in the return filed fully matches with the appointment letter found and seized during the course of search under section 132(1) from the office of employer of the appellant namely M/s Zoom Developers (P) Ltd. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 3. The assessee has also filed additional grounds, which reads as under: "1(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the all relevant evidences/documents. We find considerable cogency in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal has overlooked a crucial fact that the alleged incriminating documents during the search were recovered from the business premises of M/s Zoom Developers Ltd., hence, it belongs to M/s Zoom Developers Ltd. and not the assessee as per section 132(4A) & section 292C of the Income Tax Act and also that section 153A of the Act cannot be invoked in this case since the search has been conducted in the business premises of the company and not on the assessee and this legal ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal during the course of arguments, however, the Bench rejected the same on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was noticed that in the Office of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. some incriminating documents were found which disclosed that Mr. Ramneek Bawa, the assessee was handed over the cash amounts on various dates amounting to Rs. 24,65,000/- by the company which was not recorded in the Return of Income filed by the assessee. Regarding the amount, the assessee submitted that this amount must have been transferred from Head Office to the Branch Office for various time to time expenses. This amount did not pertain to any personal income received by the assessee from the company that the same must have been received and accounted by the Branch Office. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied. He observed that assessee himself accepted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi High Court decisions: (i) PCIT vs. Anand Kumar HUF (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12.02.2021) (ii) PCIT vs. Subhash Khattar (ITA No.60/2017 dated 25.07.2017) 6.1 It is further submitted that hence there is no valid basis for assuming jurisdiction and consequential addition in the case of the assessee. It is further submitted that even on merits, the said document is relevant in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the company has fairly admitted the same and addition to the extent of Rs. 24,65,000/- was made in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. as per assessment order placed in the paper book. It is further submitted that the said income has already been subjected to tax in the case of the company, hence there was no valid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of the assessee. As per the mandate of Section 153C, if this statement was to be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched (as referred to in Section 153A), then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person. Here, the assessment has been framed under section 153A on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act). As noted above, the Assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed. On this count alone,....