Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders related to assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16. The appeals arose from proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, following a search. The primary issue was whether the assessee, Sh. Sunil Jain, was correctly assessed for gross receipts attributed to 'Sh. Sunil Kumar', and if incriminating material was found during the search.
Held
The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was valid without incriminating material. Whether Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar are the same person for assessment purposes. Whether expenditures should be considered in the computation of income.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s five appeals to 1949/Del/2024 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 19.03.2024, passed in case nos. 10293/2019-20; 10295/2019-20; 10299/2019-20; 10300/2019-20 and 10302/2019-20 involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel’s first and foremost substantive argument raised during the course of hearing is that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in assessing the assessee under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act despite the fact that no incriminating material had been found against him during the course of search in question on 09.06.2016 in Mr. Sunil Jain Group of cases. Her second substantive contention is that the learned lower authorities have further erred in law and on facts in assessing the entire gross receipts of one “Sh. Sunil Kumar” in his hands without even proving clear nexus between them. Case law PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) is also quoted in support of the above former legal argument. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute the above settled legal proposition in the hon’ble apex court landmark decision.
We note in this factual backdrop that so far as the first and foremost assessment year 2011-12 having the assessee’s appeal is concerned; both the learned lower
2 | P a g e authorities have added the alleged total receipts from house property resulting in addition of Rs.5,40,000/- without there being any specific incriminating material found/seized during the course of search. This being the clinching factual position, we quash the impugned assessment dated 26.12.2019 itself framed in the assessee’s case in very terms. His first appeal succeeds therefore.
Next come the assessee’s second, third and fourth appeals 1947 & 1948/Del/2024 in assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. It transpires that there arises the first and foremost issue of assessee’s assessment therein for the alleged gross receipts of one “Sh. Sunil Kumar” who has been found to be the assessee himself i.e. “Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain” having different PAN in his name. The assessee’s case accordingly is that he is in no way concerned with “Sh. Sunil Kumar” so as to be assessed with the corresponding alleged gross receipts involving varying sums in these three assessment years.
Learned CIT(DR), on the other hand, has invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s identical detailed discussion that the latter has made it clear-cut case of a double PAN wherein the 3 | P a g e assessee Sh. Sunil Jain is none else but Sh. Sunil Kumar himself as per the overwhelming detailed evidence found against him right from page 7 onwards containing the detailed Investigation Wing’s report against him.
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, learned CIT(DR), further takes us to para 2.10 onwards in assessment order inter alia proving that in the concerned company; both Sunil Kumar and Sunil Jain are found having the very email ID and availing the same auditors’ services bank records as well as the DGFT, New Delhi’s certificates to quote a few instances. The appellant assessee on the other hand, has nothing to rebut except making mere bald assertion against the lower authorities’ findings. We thus find merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention and affirm the learned lower authorities’ conclusions that the assessee Sh. Sunil Jain herein and Sh. Sunil Kumar is the same person whose gross receipts have been assessed as his undisclosed income based on the incriminating/seized material during the course of search. We thus conclude that the hon’ble apex court’s above landmark decision (supra) does not apply in the facts of the assessee’s case.
4 | P a g e His corresponding arguments/legal grounds according stand rejected therefore.
Lastly comes the equally important aspect of computation of the assessee’s income comprising of gross receipts of “Sh. Sunil Kumar”, which have been treated as undisclosed income. It fairly transpires during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities have added all these gross receipts without considering the corresponding expenditure in the assessee’s hands. We make it clear that once they have treated “Sh. Sunil Jain” and “Sh. Sunil Kumar” as one and the same assessee, corresponding expenditure booked in their respective accounts also deserves to be considered to arrive at his real income as per the provisions of the Act. We thus find no merit in the assessee’s arguments to this limited extent and direct the learned Assessing Officer to finalize his afresh computation as per law with a rider that it shall be the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceeding within three effective opportunities. Ordered accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals 1947 & 1948/Del/2024 are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Lastly comes the assessee’s fifth appeal 2015-16 involving “abated” assessment as on the date of search wherein the above hon’ble apex court’s decision does not apply. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to compute his correct taxable income in above terms. This assessee’s last appeal is also accepted partly for statistical purposes. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.