TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L/M/250/2024-25/1065823865(1) 2016-2017 1493/Bang/2024 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1065824289(1) 2017-2018 1494/Bang/2024 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1065824703(1) 2.Since the facts and issues are common for all the years, we are adjudicating all these appeals by way of this consolidated order, taking assessment year 2012-2013 as a lead year. 3. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are like this. A search and seizure action was carried out on 19th July, 2017 in the case of the assessee and its business concerns. Thereafter, notices u/s.153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the assessee for filing the returns of Income covered by the provisions of section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed returns of income for all the years and thereafter the impugned assessments were framed. 4. Here it is pertinent to mention that at the time of search, the assessee has made a surrender of Rs. 13 crores for all the years covered under search action. However, at the time of filing of the returns, the assessee has not obliged his surrender made at the time of search and has filed the returns of income by incorporating the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.2 and ground No 4 to 4.2 & 5 in AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 are related to merits of the additions made by AO and affirmed by CIT(A). So far as ground number 3 upto AY 2015- 16 is concerned the AR of the assessee, on instructions, not pressed. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the issue on merits is similar but the ground numbers are different. 8. Be that as it may be the solitary issue which we have to decide is whether the A.O. is correct in adding the difference of returned income as well as surrender made as the undisclosed investment / bogus expenses, in the hands of the assessee. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has contended that in this case the entire additions in the shape of disallowance of "route expenses" have been made on the basis of uncorroborated submissions of the assessee, which statement was made under pressure and coercion at the time of search. The learned Counsel for the assessee has also drawn the attention of the Bench towards the relevant papers of the paper book such as the panchnama drawn by the search team, remand report called for by the CIT(A) during remand proceedings and contended that the additions made by the A.O. are based upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stages of the proceedings, the assessee has explained that the assessee was giving amounts to the drivers who were deployed on the various routes of transport business of the assessee for meeting small expenses, inevitable during the long journeys. The assessee also explained that at the time of search the surrender was made in order to close the proceedings. However, when the assessee has consulted his professional about the position of these expenses in the books of account then the assessee realized that the surrender made was not correct and hence at the time of filing of the return the assessee has not obliged that surrender made. It is also an admitted position of fact that the assessee in order to cover discrepancies, such as absence of proper vouchers etc. has offered an amount of Rs. 50 lakh as his additional income while filing return of income in response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act. It is worthy to note that the A.O. has considered these returns of income as final returns of income and then assessed these sum while concluding the assessment proceedings, which means that the department has impliedly accepted the revised offer of the assessee for additional income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear and unambiguous. It had specified the buildings, which were included in the definition of asset. It included guest-house, residential building, farmhouse situated within 25 kms of the municipal town, but did not include commercial building. It had specifically referred to some kind of building while omitted to include the other kinds. Therefore, only the kinds included are taxable and not the others. 7. In Ajax Products (supra), the Supreme Court, at p. 747, had relied on a passage from Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. IRC (1921) 1 KB 64 at p. 71, where Rowlatt, J. observed : "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." It was so echoed by the Supreme Court: "To put it in other words, the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly imposes the obligation. Equally important is the rule of construction that if the words of a statute are precise and unambiguous, they must be accepted as declaring the express intentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f s. 2(ea) until amended in 1997. 10. Thus, unless the definition of 'net wealth' r/w the definition of 'asset' as provided in s. 2(m) and s. 2(ea), respectively, includes a building let out to a tenant used for commercial purposes, the same cannot be subjected to wealth-tax. Even if the assessee had included the same in his return, that would not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of law. There cannot be any estoppel against statute. A property, which is not otherwise taxable, cannot become taxable because of misunderstanding or wrong understanding of law by the assessee or because of his admission or on his misapprehension. If in law an item is not taxable, no amount of admission or misapprehension can make it taxable. The taxability or the authority to impose tax is independent of admission. Neither there can be any waiver of the right by the assessee. The Department cannot rely upon any such admission or misapprehension if it is not otherwise taxable. 11. This question was dealt with by this Court in Bhaskar Mitter (supra) at para 8 at p. 442. In this decision, this Court observed : "....... An assessee is liable to pay ta....