Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR was unable to bring any other independent or tangible material to controvert the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Rather, the Ld. AR raised an alternate plea contending that these notings may be telescoped against the undisclosed income of Rs.34,88,17,470/- and Rs.8,57,66,420/- offered to tax in AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. According to us, this alternate plea was never raised by the assessee before any of the lower authorities and the same required factual verification. The Ld. DR has rightly contended that, it is required to be verified whether the undisclosed income offered to tax by the assessee in his return(s) of income had already been utilized to Periyasamy Anbunathan :: 30 ::
explain some other noting(s) found in the account book(s) or not, and if that be so, then the same cannot again be telescoped against the impugned addition. Furthermore, we have also set aside the protective addition(s) made by the AO in relation to the noting(s) found in the same account book(s). Overall therefore, we consider it fit to remit this matter back to the file of the AO for factual verification and allow the telescoping sought by the assessee if the same is found to be in accordance with law. With these directions, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

As noted by us earlier, the substantive assessment of Shri NRV has been quashed by this Tribunal and the corresponding protective addition(s) made in the hands of the assessee has been set aside back to the file of the AO (infra). However, if the source credits i.e., the amount(s) paid by the finance firm(s) and/or the income embedded therein, are added in the hands of the assessee, then it would result in double taxation of the same amount by way of unaccounted investment as well. Further, if any additional income is brought to tax in the set aside proceedings, the same would also be available for being telescoped against this unaccounted investment. Thus, though in principle, we uphold that the unaccounted investment made in property purchased from HMCPL is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee, but, in fitness of the matters, we set aside Periyasamy Anbunathan :: 36 ::

40. The principle which emerges from the above is that, the same income should not be taxed twice i.e. once at at the time of generation and thereafter at the time of application for making investment or any Periyasamy Anbunathan :: 43 ::
undisclosed asset. Having regard to this settled legal position, we now come back to the facts of the case. From the discussions set out above, it is not in dispute that, the assessee had offered income by way of receipts from repayment of cash loans and interest income aggregating to Rs.40,77,13,731/- across AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. It is not the case of the Revenue that, these items of intangible addition(s) have been telescoped by the assessee against any other unexplained expenditure or asset found in the course of search. Hence, applying the judicially approved principle of telescoping, according to us, the assessee is entitled to telescope the unaccounted income offered to tax in the return(s) of income for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 against the seized cash of Rs.4,87,33,820/-. For such reasons, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition. Before parting, it may be clarified that, the amount(s) of undisclosed income which was offered to tax by the assessee, to the extent being telescoped against the seized cash, will not be available for telescoping against any other noting(s) of any unexplained expenditure or investment, if any, found or deduced in relation to the issue(s) set aside back to the file of the AO. With these observations, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.