Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals relate to assessment orders for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2017-18, arising from a search and seizure operation. The additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) were confirmed by the CIT(A). The dispute centers around a seized document and the validity of notices issued under Section 148.
Held
The Tribunal found no fault with the orders of the lower authorities. The grounds raised by the assessee, including the validity of the Section 148 notice and the presumption under Section 292C, were found to be untenable. The additions and interest charged were upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were valid, and whether the additions made based on a seized document, presuming its contents and ownership under Section 292C, are justified.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 69C, 234A, 234B, 234C, 292C, 139(4), 132, 149, 132A, 153A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
These two appeals by assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A), Udaipur-2, dated 28.02.2024& 28.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2017-18. for A.Y 2011-12, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the assessment order in the case of the Appellant for the A.Y 2011-12 passed by Ld. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota is bad in law, without jurisdiction, perverse, beyond permitted time and in blatant disregard of the law of the land.
2. The very action taken u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 06.12.2018 also kindly be quashed.
The impugned order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 28.02.2024 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed.
4. Rs 5,49,000/-: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well in facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the AO without completely giving the benefit of set off claimed of Rs. 5,51,000/- on account of the additional income already offered in the Return of Income filed u/s. 148 of the Act. The additions so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full or the necessary actions may kindly be given to allow the setting off the income order declared.
5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in affirming the addition of Rs. 10, 00, 000/- u/s. 69C of the Act. The additions made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld CITT(A) are based on completely deaf and dumb documents which are contrary to the provisions of the law and the facts of the case and may kindly be deleted in full.
6. The Ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete and/or change all or any of the above grounds on or before the date of hearing.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 23.03.2012 u/s. 139(4) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 11,14,000/-. Thereafter a search action was carried out on 07.08.2017 on the assessee’s Resonance Group. During search and post search investigation as per the department it was found that certain income of the assessee for F.Y. 2010-11 has escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 11 Lacs. In view of this a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 26.03.2018. In response to this notice the assessee filed a return vide dated: 25.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 16.65 Lacs. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 22.14 Lacs, i.e. after making further addition of Rs. 5.49 Lacs. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us.
3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the whole gamut of dispute is there because of a seized paper no. 3 of Annexure-42 (as reproduced on page no. 3, para 3.1 of the AO’s order). This document was found from the safe custody of the assessee along with other seized documents as per the panchnama prepared by the revenue. The fact, that this document was also found from the same premises from where the other documents were found and seized. The assessee also claimed that the amount involved pertains to his son Sh. R. K. Verma and the assessee was simply a custodian of the same. Even if this argument for the time being accepted then the same should have been explained by his son by way of confirmation or admission, Disclosure of the same in his ITR for the respective years or Explanation through books of accounts maintained by him. Here we would like to refer to the provisions of section 292C of the Act for better persuasion as under:
Section - 292C, Income-tax Act, 1961 - FA, 2024 Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc. 292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed— (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.] (2) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer in accordance with the provisions of section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.
In view of the provisions of section 292C of the Act, there is no iota of any doubt about the onus to prove the document otherwise is on the assessee and specially when other documents seized has already been owned by the assessee and either explained or paid taxes on the same, then how this particular document can be said to be out of the purview of section 292C of the Act. Even in the return in pursuance to section 148 of the Act, the assessee further declared and revised the return by disclosing Rs. 5.51 Lacs in addition to the original figure of income declared earlier.
We have carefully considered the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT (A), wherein the grounds taken by the assessee and explanations put forward have been dealt with in detail. We do not find any fault in the order of the authorities below, rather than the assessee miserably failed to explain the document and transaction. Surprisingly, it is also beyond our understanding that on what basis he revised his return u/s. 148 of the Act by Rs. 5.51 Lacs and why not the whole amount of Rs. 11 Lacs. On all the grounds raised
before us, we found the order of Ld. CIT (A) the same has been objectively, logically and legally answered by him. But here the moot question, as raised by the assessee through ground nos. 1 and 2 are about the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. We have considered the provisions of section 149 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year, i.e. 2011-12. For this year the time limit was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year subject to escapement of Rs.
1. Lac or more. Hence, these grounds are also not tenable and dismissed. We have considered the additional ground taken by the assessee, i.e. order being passed without generating DIN No. On this issue we have considered the reply of the department vide dated: 06.03.2025 and find the same is in order and confirms the requirement of law, hence additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any fault in the order of the authorities below and rather we appreciate the order of Ld. CIT(A), which objectively, logically and legally on strong footing. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and orders of the authorities below are confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. for A.Y 2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in order u/s. 143(3)/153A of the Act dated 22.12.2019 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
2. Rs. 61,66,000/-: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.61,66,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed income as per documents found seized marked as Annexure-AS, Exhibit-2, Pg. 61, 62, 64, Exhibit-44 Pg1, 2, Exhibit-45 Pg-1 and Exhibit-49 Pg16. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same may kindly be deleted in full.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
4. The Id. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing tax, surcharge, cess etc. as per provision of Section 115BBE of the Act. The invoking of Sec. 115BBE is contrary to the provisions of law, on facts and without jurisdiction. The appellant totally denies its liability. The tax liability so created, kindly be deleted in full.
5. The appellant prays for your honor indulgence to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
For the year under consideration the assessee filed his return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 24,84,600/-. Thereafter there was a search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 07.09.2017 (In order for A.Y. 2011-12 date of search is mentioned as 07.08.2017) at the various premises of the Resonance Group, Kota to which the assessee belongs. The case of the assessee was also covered under the search proceedings.
7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 17th day of April 2025.