Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
(A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”,for short] pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08, on the following grounds:
“1. That the notice issued and assessment order passed U/s 153A / 143(3) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That the addition made by the AO are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. Hence assessment order passed
ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora.
U/s 153A/143(3) and the additions/disallowances are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT (A) has erred in law in upholding the addition U/s 153A made by the AO as no incriminating document was found at the premises of the assessee during the course of search.
That the addition/disallowance made is unjust, arbitrary and is not based on any material on record. The CIT(Appeal) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,13,000/- out of addition of Rs.8,71,958/-.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- U/s 69 of the act on account of Cash deposit in the ABN AMRO Bank of the assessee.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the cage, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.5,13,000/- U/s 69 of the act on account of Cash deposit in the Standard Charted Bank of the minor son.
That CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the deposit of Rs,8,13,000/- in the bank accounts is covered by the receipts from Assessee’s relatives.
That the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the addition made.
That the addition made is based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record.
That interest U/s 234A 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly and illegally charged and has been wrongly worked out.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
(B) The Assessee filed original return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) on 25.02.2008, which was after Search and Seizure action under Section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out on 05.12.2007. In response to notice under Section 153A of I.T. Act, issued after Search & Seizure
ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. action, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 73,708/-. Assessment Order under Section 153A / 143(3) of I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) on 30.12.2009 in which the additions were made, amounting to Rs. 3,40,000/-(on account of cash deposited in the assessee’s Bank Account in ABN AMRO Bank) and Rs. 5,31,958/- (on account of cash deposited in Standard Chartered Bank in the account of assessee’s minor son). The Assessee filed appeal before the leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the aforesaid additions totaling Rs. 8,71,958/- (Rs. 3,40,000 + Rs. 5,31,958). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions totaling of Rs. 8,13,000/- and deleted the remaining amount. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.04.2015 of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
“
ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora. ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora.
(C) This present appeal has been field by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A).
(D) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee did not make any submissions on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of this appeal. In Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of appeal, the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under Section 153A has been challenged. It is not in dispute that the original return filed by the assessee under Section 139 of I.T. Act was on 25.02.2008, which is well after the search and seizure action under Section 132 of I.T. Act. When the assessee has filed original return after the date of search, the AO has the jurisdiction to make additions in the Assessment Order under Section 153A of I.T. Act, regardless of whether any incriminating materials were found / seized in the course of search action under Section 132 of I.T. Act. There is nothing in law under Section 153A of I.T. Act to prohibit the AO from making additions in Assessment Order under Section 153A of I.T. Act, even if no incriminating materials were found / seized during search action U/s 132 of I.T. Act; when the original return under Section 139 of I.T. Act has been filed after the date of search. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case before us; the Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of appeal have no merits. In any case, the Ld. Counsel for assessee did not make any submissions on these grounds, at the time of hearing. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed.
ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora.
(E) In Grounds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the appeal, the addition has been disputed by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed speaking order on merits in paragraph 6 to 7.6 of his aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015; which is already reproduced in foregoing paragraph (B) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel made submissions on the merits of the addition totaling Rs. 8,13,000/-, confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). For this purpose, the Ld. Counsel for assessee placed reliance on submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). He took us through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to explain the submissions made on the merits of the additions. However, he left it to the discretion of the Bench to decide whether the assessee’s explanation was acceptable.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld.
CIT(DR)”, for short] relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO. He also relied on the judicial precedents in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC)/[2016] / 239 Taxman 264 (SC), Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF)
Vs CIT [2014] 46 taxmann.com 340 (Punjab & Haryana)/ [2014] 224 Taxman 178 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.), Kavita Chandra Vs CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 317 (Punjab & Haryana)/ [2017] 248 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana )/ [2017] 398 ITR 641 (Punjab & Haryana), Krishan Kumar Sethi Vs CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi), Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs PCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi), CIT Vs D.K. Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad), and Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari Vs CIT [2005] 276 ITR 38
ITA No.-3482/Del/2015. Shri Amit Arora.
(Allahabad)/ [2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad). After perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with law in the fact and circumstances of the case. He has passed a speaking order in detail and we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). No convincing materials were placed for our consideration to warrant a view different from the view already taken by Ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the addition. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Grounds 4 to 9 of appeal are dismissed.
(F) Ground 10 of appeal is regarding interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act. No submissions were made on this ground of appeal by the Ld. Counsel for assessee, at the time of hearing. From perusal of records, we find no reason to hold, as alleged in this ground of appeal, that the interest has been wrongly / illegally charged and wrongly worked out. However, we direct the AO to levy interest as per law. For statistical purposes ground 10 of appeal is treated as partly allowed.
(G) In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/11/19.