Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Before the Tribunal, the assessee also questioned the validity of the additions made in the assessments framed under Section 153A of the Act. The challenge was based on the following line of argument. It was contended that during the search of the assessee‟s premises, no document or incriminating material, except the one unsigned undertaking for the loan was found. There was no corroborative material seized in the course of search. The income tax returns for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 (six years) were filed prior to the search and in the normal course, suo moto disclosing the particulars of the subject additions and these returns stood accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. Since on the date of the initiation of the search, no assessment was pending as they had all abated, the Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked Section 153A of the Act. The assessment contemplated by Section 153A is not a de novo assessment and the additions made therein have to be necessarily restricted to the undisclosed income unearthed during the search. The Section has to be strictly interpreted. It is not an assessment such as a normal or regular scrutiny assessment.

14. As regards the merits of the addition of the loan and the notional interest thereon, the Tribunal held that the document recovered during the search did not bear the signature of the assessee or Mohini Sharma, the alleged borrower. She was also not examined by the departmental authorities. According to the Tribunal, the unsigned document which was stated to have never been acted upon by the parties cannot be presumed to contain unexplained or unaccounted income of the assessee. The Tribunal further held that so far as interest is concerned, no notional income which was not earned by the assessee can be added and taxed. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal deleted the addition of `1,50,000/- in the assessment year 2003-04 and consequently the notional interest of `27,000/-added in the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 was also deleted.

22. In the light of our discussion, we find it difficult to uphold the view of the Tribunal expressed in Para 9.6 of its order that since the returns of income filed by the assessee for all the six years under consideration before the search took place were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the provisions of Section 153A cannot be invoked. The Assessing Officer has the power under Section 153A to make assessment for all the six years and compute the total income of the assessee, including the undisclosed income, notwithstanding that the assessee filed returns before the date of search which stood processed under Section 143(1)(a). The other reason given by the Tribunal in the same paragraph of its order that no material was found during the search is factually unsustainable since the entire case and arguments before the departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the document embodying the transaction with Mohini Sharma was recovered from the assessee. While summarizing the contentions of the assessee in Paragraph 5 of its order, the Tribunal itself has referred to the contention that no document much less incriminating material was found during the search of the assessee‟s premises, except one unsigned undertaking for loan. Again in Paragraph 10 of its order, while dealing with the assessee‟s contention against the addition of `1,50,000/- being unexplained loan given to Mohini Sharma, the Tribunal has stated that it has analyzed "the subject document carefully, recovered from search" suggesting that the document was recovered during the search from the assessee. The Tribunal has even proceeded to delete the addition of `1,50,000/- as well as the notional interest on merits, holding that the document was unsigned, that Mohini Sharma was not examined by the income tax authorities and there was no corroboration of the unsigned document. If it is not in dispute that the document was found in the course of the search of the assessee, then Section 153A is triggered. Once the Section is triggered, it appears mandatory for the Assessing Officer to issue notices under Section 153A calling upon the assessee to file returns for the six assessment years prior to the year in which the search took place. There are contradictions in the order of the Tribunal. We are unable to appreciate how the Tribunal can say in Para 9.6 that no material was found during the search and at the same time in Paragraph 10 deal with the merits of the additions based on the document recovered during the search which allegedly contain the loan transaction with Mohini Sharma. Therefore, both the reasons given by the Tribunal for holding that the assessments made under Section 153A were bad in law do not commend themselves to us. The result is that the first substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

27. In the light of the aforesaid findings, it was incumbent upon the assessee in his further appeal before the Tribunal to rebut the findings of fact and adduce evidence or explanation as to why the findings are perverse or arbitrary or cannot be given effect to. The contention however, raised by him before the Tribunal, as noted in Paragraph 10 of the order of the Tribunal is that Mohini Sharma was not examined by the departmental authorities and that the unsigned document lacked corroboration and therefore, cannot be made the sole basis for making the addition. It would also appear to have been contended before the Tribunal that the document was not acted upon right from the beginning. The Tribunal accepted the contention and deleted the addition.