Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii) Because the income shown in the return filed fully matches with the appointment letter found and seized during the course of search under section 132(1) from the office of employer of the appellant namely M/s Zoom Developers (P) Ltd.

iv) The appellant craves lave to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case search u/s. 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was conducted on 04.02.2009. During the course of search various incriminating documents were found at the office as well as residential premises of the assessee and seized. In this case original return of income was filed on 15.12.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 54,56,222/- and revised return of income was filed on 16.12.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 80,76,615/-. During the course of search, loose paper filed Annexure A-27 was seized from the office premises of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. As per page 29 of this file payment to the tune of Rs. 24,65,000/- were made in cash to the assessee during the FY 2008-09. These payments were not found recorded in the books of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. as well as in the books of the assessee. The assessee has specifically asked during the course of recording of statements on 05.2.2009 about the source of this cash payment and ultimate use of the same vide question no. 22nd and 23rd of the statements. However, the assessee failed to give any reply about the cash received from the company on various dates. Therefore, AO treated the entire cash received of Rs. 24,65,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee and added the same to the total income and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,05,41,620/- u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2010. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 06.3.2018 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition in dispute. Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 24,25,000/- on erroneous assumption of facts and law. He further submitted that in this case no matching assets or cash was found from the possession of the assessee. It was further submitted that income shown in the return filed fully matches with the appointment letter found and seized during the course of search und section 132(1) of the Act from the office of employer of the assessee namely M/s Zoom Developers (P) Ltd. It was further submitted that the document impounded from the premises of the Employer of the assessee clearly states that the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid for IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Travel Corporation)!.e. for the purposes where the Company's projects were going on and nowhere in the said entry at SI. No. 6 or otherwise name of the appellant appears. Therefore, Id. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified to assume that the sum in question had been paid to the appellant and that too by way of salary taxable in his hands, simply on the ground that appellant-assessee has not stated that where and how this amount was utilized. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and missed to note that page 29 of Annexure A-27 was not impounded or found from the possession of the assessee but from the business premises of his employer and no corroborative evidence so as to allege that sums found noted in the loose papers impounded were received by the appellant- assessee and the same were received by him against his salary emoluments or for personal benefit of the assessee and the said sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs could not have been added to the income of the assessee/appellant even by raising presumption. In spite of search on the assessee, no matching undisclosed asset or cash was found from the possession of the assessee. It was further informed that similarly, the transaction appearing at SI. No. 1, for Rs. 2,50,000/- is dated 19.03.2008, therefore, no addition for the same can be mad in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2009-10, moreover, it shows non- application of mind to the facts of the case. So far as the variation in the return filed on 15.12.2010 and revising the same on the very next date i.e. on 16.12.2010 is concerned, it is submitted the variation is mainly due to the fact that in the return filed on 15.12.2010, only net salary received i.e. net of TDS was shown [as Form 16 for the tax deducted at source from salary was not received from the employer], however on realizing the mistake, revised return was filed immediately. Therefore, adverse inference drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) on this score is unwarranted. Further, it was submitted that in the present case as the search on the assessee took place on 04.02.2009 which fell in the previous year 2008-09. Therefore, assessment year 2009-10 (year under appeal here) is not covered by the provision contained in section 153A Therefore, assessment made by invoking the provision of section 153A for the assessment year 2009-10 is not valid and void ab initio. In support of his contention, he filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-42 in which he has attached the copy of Panchnama drawn at his residence 3, Avalon Apartment, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, New Delhi in the name of Shri Rumneek Bawa, President and CEO Zoom Developers dated 4.2.2009 including Annexure A; Annexure O; Annexure 2 to 5; copy of Panchnama of Locker No. 57, at South Indian Bank, B-9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure 2, Inventory of jewellery Rs. 4,54,350/-); copy of panchanama of locker No. 47 at P& S Bank Rajinder Place, New Delhi dated 13.2.2009 (found vacant); Statement of Sh. Rumneek Bawan son of Sh. SS Bawa u/s. 132(4)/133A on oath on 4/5.2.2009 at Thapar Farms, Behind D-3, Pocket, Shantikunj, New Delhi in the case of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.; Assessing Officer's questionnaire dated 9.11.2010; Ack. for filing ITR for AY 2009-10 dated 15.12.2010; Ack. for filing ITR for AY 2009-10 dated 16.12.2010; Assessee's reply dated 11.12.2010; Assessee's reply dated 16.12.2010 alongwith increment letter dated 30.11.2008, as was received from the employer i.e. M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and written submission dated 23.2.2012 as were during hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). He also filed the copy of synopsis in support of his contention, which are reproduced as under:-

Since assessee had not taken any steps to rectify its declaration before authorities before whom such declaration was made, there was no valid reason for retraction of same after a gap of about two and a half months. Carpenters Classics (Exim) (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT, Bang.) 108 ITD 142.

D.      In view of the above facts, it is

humbly       requested   that     appeal   of    the

assessee may be dismissed."

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order as well as the written submissions filed by both the parties and the Paper Book filed by the assessee. We find that during the course of search loose papers were seized vide Annexure A-27 from the office premises of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. As per page 29 of Annexure A-27 cash payment of Rs. 24,65,000/- to various persons were made on different dates (as mentioned at page no. 6 & 7 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order). We note that all these payments have been made in cash and the same were not found recorded in the books of accounts of M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. as well as in the books of appellant. The assessee was specifically asked to explain the receipt of cash on various dates vide question no. 20,21,22 and 23 of his statements recorded on 05.02.2009. The assessee was specifically asked about the cash payment received in question no. 22. However, assessee stated that he will not able to reply and accounts persons will clarify the same. However, no clarification about cash payments received was filed by the assessee subsequently before the Assessing Officer. The AR of the assessee submitted that this paper was not signed and confirmed by anyone, therefore, same cannot be relied upon. The AR further stated that entry of Rs.40,000/- of dated 31.07.2008 pertains to Sh. Vikas Aggarwal and entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 26.08.2008 were not recorded in the name of assessee. It is true that entry of Rs.40,000/- dated 31.07.2008 has been recorded in the name of Sh. Vikas Aggarwal and he was paid Rs.40,000/-, therefore, this amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. As regards the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- it is mentioned that this amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid for IRCTC purpose on 26.08.2008 to the assessee. The assessee was specifically asked vide his statements recorded on 05.02.2009 to explain the receipt of the cash and their ultimate use. But the assessee did not give any reply to question no. 22 and 23 of the said statements. The amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received for IRCTC purposes by the assessee, however where and how this amount was utilized, the assessee did not file any reply for the same. During the course of assessment proceedings, also the assessee was specifically asked about this however no reply was filed by the assessee. It was further noted that assessee has originally filed return of income of Rs.55,5.6,222/- on 15.12.2010 which was revised on 16.12.2010 at Rs.81,76,615/-. This shows that the salary receipt of the assessee were not properly managed by him and he has not filed any Form no. 16 alongwith the return of income. It is also seen that in the statement recorded on 05.02.2009 the assessee himself has mentioned vide reply to question no. 3 that his total salary was Rs.1.31 crores. All these facts indicate that assessee was receiving salary in cash which was not being recorded by M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and as well as by the assessee in their books of accounts. Therefore, the amount of cash received by the assessee of Rs. 24,25,000/- was rightly added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee and the same was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishore Kumar vs. CIT (62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771) wherein it has been that "since assessee himself had stated in sworn during search and seizure about his undisclosed income, tax was to be levied on basis of admission without scrutinizing documents." However, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee are distinguished to the facts of the present case and deals with the legal issue i.e. wrongly invoking the provision of section 153A of the Act, which ground has not been raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal, before the Tribunal, as aforesaid, hence, the same are not applicable in the present case.