CHANDRANAND MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4523/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 January 2018AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized from the assessee. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as undisclosed commission. This addition was based on loose papers seized during a search at the premises of Ms. Priyanka Chopra, related to alleged stage performance in Dubai.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether an addition under Section 153A is sustainable without incriminating material found in search, especially when documents were impounded during a survey action, not a search of the assessee's premises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 133A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Raman, Shri Naresh Kumar &, Shri Yogesh Joijode
For Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar &, Shri Yogesh Joijode

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 11.05.2015 and pertains to the assessment year 2008- 09. 2. The grounds of appeal

read as under:

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.1,00,000/- being alleged undisclosed receipt of 2 Shri Chandranand Mishra vs. Dy. CIT Commission in relation to alleged stage performing at Ramee Royal, Dubai, UAE by Ms. Priyanka Chopra on protective basis. An amount of Rs.16,00,000/- including sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is also added in the hands of Ms. Priyanka Chopra for A.Y. 2008-2009. It is submitted that such addition has been made on the basis of loose paper seized at Page no.118 of Annexure A -7 at the premises of appellant. It is however submitted that during assessment proceedings, it was submitted that Ms. Priyanka Chopra has reached to the said event however, on account of insufficient security reason; no performance has been carried out. It is further submitted that no evidences whatsoever have been found by the Income Tax Search team which indicates performance at such alleged function nor any loose papers have been found during search proceedings which indicates any such receipt of Income in cash and therefore, estimation and receipt of alleged undisclosed Income of Rs.15,00,000/- by Ms. Priyanka Chopra and Rs.1,00,000/- by appellant out of books is unreasonable and unlawful. In view of the above, we would pray your honour to delete such arbitrary addition made by the Ld. AO which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

It is submitted that no evidence regarding receipt of cash has been found by search party as well as Ld. AO hence, Income added on assumptions and presumptions is against basic of principles of law and against Natural justice. In view of the above facts, such addition should be deleted.

3.

The assessee has also raised additional grounds:

Additional Ground: The assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w. Sec 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the appellant is bad-in-law because no document or valuable asset belonging to the appellant was seized. The documents relied upon in the assessment order were impounded during the survey action u/s. 133A.

4.

We find that in this case the assessee has filed return of income on 01.09.2008. Subsequently, this assessment was framed u/s. 153A pursuant to search on 24.01.2011 in the case of Ms. Priyanka Chopra. We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva)

3 Shri Chandranand Mishra vs. Dy. CIT Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom), order dated 21.04.2015 has expounded that in case of assessment u/s. 153A, no addition is sustainable de hors any incriminating material found in search in case of a abated assessment. Since the issue raised in the additional ground goes to the root of the matter, we admit this ground raised on the anvil of honourable apex court decision in the case of N.T.P.C. Ltd. We find that a similar issue was raised in the case of Ms. Priyanka Chopra (in for assessment year 2009-10), related with the same addition. In that case also we had remitted the matter to the file of the assessing officer to consider the issue in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra). Since the present issue is also identical, we remit this issue also to the file of assessing officer. He is directed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the decision of honourable jurisdictional High Court (supra) after referring to the requisite factual details necessary.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →