TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12 which arises out of an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-20 [CIT(A)] on 23-10-2014 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 03-03-2016. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai {CIT(A)} erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,30,50,000 made u/s 69 of the Act. 2. The appellant submits that assessing officer erred in passing the order under section 144 r/w 153C of the Act as the provisions of section 153C are not applicable to his case. 3. The appellant submits that he is a searched person u/s 132 covered by the Panchanama and warrant of authorization and therefore t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the other hand he was maintaining the accounts for the amounts provided by Mr. Aswin and therefore it cannot be inferred that the entries made in the loose sheets were payments made by the appellant. 11. The appellant submits that the assessing officer has made the additions for various expenses noted in the loose sheets which had not brought any investment as such and therefore the addition of Rs. 1,30,50,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act made by the assessing officer is not correct and liable to be deleted. 12. The appellant submits that the assessing officer identified three properties in the assessment order as undisclosed investment in properties. Out of the above admittedly item (i) belongs to one Smt. Rajammal not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. The appellant therefore prays that the assessment made under section 153C may be cancelled as invalid in law and also to delete the addition of Rs 1,30,50,000 made as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the assessment order and render justice. 2. As is evident, the sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs. 130.50 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. The assessee assails the jurisdiction of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee was a searched person and his statement was also recorded on oath u/s 132(4) and therefore, the assessment ought to have been framed u/s 153A. The Ld. AR also challenged the quantum additions on merits. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, controverted the arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 130.50 Lacs was added in the hands of the assessee and the assessment was framed. Similar assessment was framed for AY 2012-13. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment so framed by Ld. AO in first appeal. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of Shri D. Ramgopal to search the premises of the assessee at Coimbatore on 27-11- 2013. The assessee questioned the jurisdiction of Ld. AO u/s 153C. The Ld. CIT(A), in para 5.2.2 of the impugned order, noted that warrant of authorisation was issued u/s 132 in the case of Shri D. Ramgopal to search assessee's premises. The copy of warrant of authorisation and Panchnama has been extracted in the impugned order. Undisputedly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments reflecting investments were found at the residential premises of the assessee and the presumption u/s 132(4A) & 292C would apply in the present case. The statements u/s 132(4) and 131 were recorded from the assessee which was also on the basis of notings in the seized documents. In the recorded statement, the assessee clearly explained the content of the seized material regarding expenditure incurred by him to purchase the properties in his and in his wife's name. The onus to explain the sources thereof was on the assessee and the assessee failed to discharge the same. Finally, rejecting all the arguments, legal as well as on merits, the assessment was confirmed for both the years against which the assessee is in further appeal befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same to be mere clerical error. However, this observation is to be seen in the background of the fact that the impugned material was seized from assessee's premises and his statement was also recorded on oath u/s 132(4) which provide that authorized officer may, during the course of search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceedings under the act. Upon commutative consideration of above stated facts including that fact of seizure of impugned documents from the assessee and statement recor....