Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R Per BENCH: These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore, [CIT(A)], dated 25/06/2016 for the assessment years 2006- 07 to 2012-13. Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals, we dispose of these appeals vide this common order.
The assessee raised the following identical grounds:
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of horse training in Bangalore Turf Club. There was a search and seizure operation in the residential premises of the assessee along with one Mr. M.M.Prasanna Kumar and others on 06/2/2012. Consequently notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] dated 13/09/2012 was issued requiring the assessee to file return of income. In response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed returns of income for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 as follows:
Assessment Date of filing Income Income year return declared assessed of income 2006-07 18/12/2013 Rs.1,65,000/- Rs.1,65,000/- 2007-08 18/12/2013 Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.5,10,400/- 2008-09 18/12/2013 Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.5,50,900/- 2009-10 18/12/2013 Rs.2,04,000/- Rs.13,28,900/- 2010-11 28/02/2013 Rs.4,32,500/- Rs.42,12,258/- 2011-12 18/12/2013 Rs.8,68,440/- 20,69,154/- to 1588/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 9 For the assessment year 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) was issued requiring the assessee to file return of income. In response to same, assessee filed return of income on 11/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.11,30,540/-. The assessments were completed by the DCIT, Circle 2(1), Bangalore vide orders dated 26/03/2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act by disallowing 50% of the expenditure claimed of Rs.8,41,800/- for assessment year 2008-09, Rs.10,18,800/- for assessment year 2009-10, Rs.8,41,800/-; Rs.12,99,512.48 for the assessment year 2010-11, Rs.11,38,307.17/- 5,69,154/- for assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.14,94,293.41/- for assessment year 2012-13.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) contending inter alia that there was no search and seizure action under section 132 in the case of the appellant and therefore in the absence of warrant for search, the assessment made u/s 153A is not valid in law. The only effective ground raised before the ld.CIT(A) is on the valid notice under section 153A in the absence of search warrant in the name of the appellant. Despite filing an appeal, the appellant had refused to accept service of notice of hearing issued by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has brought out this conduct of the appellant vide paragraph 5 of his order which is reproduced below :
Finally notice of hearing came to be served on the appellant through the Inspector. After service of the said notice, the AR of the appellant filed written submissions on 14/06/2016 which are as under:
The ld.CIT(A), after calling for remand report from the AO held that there was a search and seizure action in the case of the appellant and there was warrant to search. Accordingly the CIT(A) rejected the contention of the appellant that there was no search and seizure action and search warrant in the name of the Appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal.
The effective ground of appeal raised by the appellant is on the validity of the assessment made under section 153A in the absence of search warrant. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO which is as under:
From the remand report, it is clear that there was a search in the premises of the appellant on 22/08/2012 and the appellant never objected before the AO on the validity of the proceedings under section 153A. Even before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has not led any evidence rebutting the findings of the AO in the remand report nor could she give a plausible explanation as to how the appellant could not co-operate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). In the circumstances we do not find any fallacy in the orders of the CIT(A). Further it is ITA Nos.1582 to 1588/Bang/2016 Page 9 of 9 noteworthy that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Shri Peter Caddy vs. Dy.CIT in to 1581/Bang/2016 dated 14/07/2017 involving identical facts took similar view.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th January 2018.