Search Results For: Search assessment


Rashmi Metaliks Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09 to 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Natural Justice: The assessee cannot be kept in the dark. Adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes. If the AO intends to use it to draw adverse inference/finding, the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. Failure to do so is a serious flaw which renders the assessment a nullity (All imp judgements referred)

It has to be kept in mind that the AO is empowered to collect materials behind the back of the assessee, however if he intends to use it adversely against the assessee, then it is incumbent upon him to furnish a copy of the materials/statements to the assessee and the assessee should be provided an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. The assessee cannot be kept in the dark and the adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes, and if the AO was intending to use it against the assessee to draw adverse inference/finding, then the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material, which is a natural right of the assessee and we find that it has not been done in this case, resulting in violation of natural justice. We are therefore of the considered view that the general statements recorded from the alleged entry operators by themselves with the legal infirmities pointed out, supra, did not constitute incriminating material for the purposes of Section 153A of the Act

Surendra Kumar Jain vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Search assessments. The time limit of 2 years u/s 153B for framing search assessment orders applies only to the original order and to orders passed after remand. The time limit for passing remand orders is governed by s. 153(3)/ erstwhile 153( 2A) & not by s. 153B. Limitation begins (for any purpose under the Act) from the point of time when the departmental representative receives the copy of a decision or an order of the ITAT

The next question is whether the non-obstante clause under Section 153 of the Act, which prescribes a specific period of limitation to complete a search assessment for the block period concerned, could override the general period of limitation. In this context, the Court notices that Section 153 of the Act generally talks of various periods of limitation. It prescribes that no order of assessment shall be made either under Section 143 or Section 144 of the Act any time after expiry of twenty one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The exception carved by way of Section 153(2) – relates to reassessment and states that in cases covered by it, the period is reduced to nine months from any of financial year in which the notice for re-assessment is served

ACIT vs. Splendor Landbase Limited (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Applicability of s. 80 to s. 153A returns: A return filed u/s 153A is deemed to be a return filed u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of s. 80 do not apply. The return u/s 153A, once accepted and assessed, replaces the original return filed u/s 139. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for carry forward business loss

Therefore, if the assessee has filed a loss return u/s. 139(3) within the period provided under the Act and if the assessee has filed a revised loss return under Sub- section (5) thereof again within the prescribed time limit, the A.O is bound to take cognizance of the revised return because the original return is replaced by the revised return, held the Tribunal. In the present case before us, undisputedly, the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been framed on the basis of return filed in response to notice issue u/s. 153A of the Act. Hence, now it is not open to raise contention by the revenue that return was filed beyond the prescribed time period mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act. The return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A on the basis of which assessment in question has been framed thus has replaced the original return for determining the net income in the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. Thus, in a sense, return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 153A was a revised return and the assessment was re- assessment

CIT vs. S. Ajit Kumar (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 158BB Block Assessment: While it is a cardinal principle of law that in order to add any income in the block assessment, evidence of such income must be found in the course of the search u/s 132, any material or evidence found/collected in a survey u/s 133A which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can also be utilized while making the Block Assessment. The same would fall under the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” occurring in s. 158 BB

It is a cardinal principle of law that in order to add any income in the block assessment, evidence of such must be found in the course of the search under Section 132 of the IT Act or in any proceedings simultaneously conducted in the premises of the assessee, relatives and/or persons who are connected with the assessee and are having transaction/dealings with such assessee. In the present case, the moot question is whether the fact of cash payment of Rs 95.16 lakhs can be added under the head of the undisclosed income of the assessee in block assessment. The power of survey has been provided under Section 133A of the IT Act. Therefore, any material or evidence found/collected in a Survey which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can be utilized while making the Block Assessment in respect of an assessee under Section 158BB read with Section 158 BH of the IT Act. The same would fall under the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” occurring in Section158 BB of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the Block Assessment.

Tapan Kumar Dutta vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1989-90 to 1999-2000
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 158BD Block Assessment: Although s. 158BD does not speak of ‘recording of reasons’ as postulated in s. 148, but since proceedings u/s 158BD may have monetary implications, such satisfaction must reveal mental and dispassionate thought process of the AO in arriving at a conclusion and must contain reasons which should be the basis of initiating the proceedings u/s 158BD. Notice u/s 158BC issued on the same date to the searched person and the other person is not valid as no reasonable or prudent man can come to the satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs to the other person unless the seized books of accounts etc are verified. The AO is empowered to issue a second notice u/s 158BD to the other person

The very object of the Section 158BD is to give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against any person other than the person against whom a search warrant is issued. Although Section 158BD does not speak of ‘recording of reasons’ as postulated in Section 148, but since proceedings under Section 158BD may have monetary implications, such satisfaction must reveal mental and dispassionate thought process of the Assessing Officer in arriving at a conclusion and must contain reasons which should be the basis of initiating the proceedings under Section 158BD

DCIT vs. Studio Aethletic Health & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 15, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Undisclosed income found in search: Law on whether statement obtained u/s 132(4) admitting earning of undisclosed income, which is allegedly retracted, can be used for making assessment explained in the light of P.V. Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49 (SC), S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) and CBDT’s Circular

From the above, it is apparent that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s reliance upon the so called retraction of the admission during search is not cogent. Similarly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reliance upon the CBDT Circular of not obtaining confession is also out of place. It is clear that the registers were found which clearly detailed about undocumented surgeries performed by Dr. Ashok Chopra and unaccounted cash receipts. Based upon this Dr. Ashok Chopra has admitted offer of Rs.1.74 crores. Dr. Ashok Chopra had also accepted the working of this figure. As already noted there was never any retraction whatsoever by Dr. Ashok Chopra. The said admission of Dr. Ashok Chopra was also duly accepted and corroborated by Smt. Madhu Chopra, the director of the company. Under these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s contradictory acceptance that no incriminating documents were found, is not at all acceptable

Dayawanti vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 7, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A search assessment: Supreme Court stays operation of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dayawanti Gupta vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del). The High Court dealt with the issue whether an assessment u/s 153A can be made even if no incriminating material has been found during s. 132 search proceedings

In Dayawanti Gupta vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del), the assessee argued before the Delhi High Court that since no incriminating material was found during or pursuant to the search, additions, made on the basis of block assessment, were unsustainable inasmuch as they revisited finally settled assessments. It was submitted that for completing a block assessment, founded on search proceedings and notice under Section 153A, the assessing officer has to base the order on fresh materials found during the search, in the form of books of accounts, articles seized, or other similar materials. In this case, the revenue could not substantiate its plea that the assesses had concealed their income, because nothing suspect which could result in an addition to the income assessed during the previous years was in fact seized or taken into custody. Therefore, the four assessments for the block period in question had to be set aside

M/s N. K. Jewellers vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132: The plea that the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 are invalid and that the block assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction cannot be entertained because s. 132A provides that the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal as recorded by Income Tax Authority u/s 132 or 132A

In view of the amendment made in Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the ‘reason to believe’ or ‘reason to suspect’, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal as recorded by Income Tax Authority under Section 132 or Section 132A. We, therefore, cannot go into that question at all. Even otherwise, we find that the explanation given by the appellant regarding the amount of cash of Rs.30 lacs found by the GRP and seized by the authorities has been disbelieved and has been treated as income not recorded in the Books of Account maintained by it

CIT vs. Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 6, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Search assessment u/s 153C: Proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated against a person only if the seized materials "belongs" to that person. It is not sufficient for the Revenue to urge that the seized document "pertains" to the person. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 290 (SC) followed

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) settles the legal position in favour of the Assessees. The Supreme Court, while affirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court, approved the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, (2013) 263 CTR (Guj) 362 that a document seized ‘should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act’. It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that the above position of law laid down by the Gujarat High Court is correct. Consequently, this Court rejects the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that even prior to 1st June 2015 at the stage of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, it is sufficient if the seized document ‘pertained to’ the other person and it is not necessary to show that the seized material ‘belonged to’ the other person

CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A: Argument of the Dept that the law laid down in Continental
Warehousing/ All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the search and no other issue can be taken is per incuriam in view of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC) is not correct. Bhola Shankar Cold Storage 270 ITR 487 (Cal) distinguished

The argument of Mr. Ahuja is that the view taken by the Tribunal based on its Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle44, [2012] 23 Taxman.Com 103 (Mum.) (SB) cannot be said to be correct. Mr. Ahuja’s argument is that though the assessee is heavily relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax v. (1) Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and (2) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Reported in [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom), still, the questions proposed by the Revenue in these Appeals ought to be entertained. These are substantial questions of law and the Division Bench judgment in Continental Warehousing Corporation and All Cargo Global Logistics (supra) is rendered in ignorance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited).

Top