Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Shri Tejas Vinubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs The Dcit, Central Cir-1(3),, Ahmedabad on 8 April, 2019 cites

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 19 vs Neeraj Jindal on 28 August, 2017

8. We have perused the assessment order. The AO has not made reference to any material found during the course of search which can suggest that additional incomes declared by the assessee are representing any money, bullion, jewellery or impounded any diary. In other words, it cannot be construed that some assets were found during the course of search representing that income which has been declared by the appellants. Somewhat similar and identical issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal, 393 ITR 1. The following finding of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is worth to note. It reads as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Dy. Cit, Ahmednagar Circle,, ... vs Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankariya,, ... on 26 May, 2017

"26. Now for the Revenue to invoke Explanation 5, it would have to prove that its requirements are clearly fulfilled in the present case. In order for Explanation 5 to apply, it is necessary that there must be certain assets (such as money, bullion etc.) found in the possession of the assessee during the search, and that the assessee must claim that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income. Moreover, such income must be in relation to a particular previous year that has either ended before the date of the search or is to end on or after the date of the search and such income is declared subsequently in the return of income filed after the search. Therefore, it is only when assets are found during the search which the assessee claims have been acquired by him by utilizing (wholly or in part) his income for any particular previous year, and then declares such income (which he utilized in acquiring the assets found) in a subsequent return filed after the date of search, would it be deemed that the assesee has concealed his income. In other words, the assets seized during the search must relate to the income of the particular assessment year whose return is filed after the date of the search. Such a conclusion is only logical, considering that assessment under the Act is with respect to a particular assessment year and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) would ITA No.2662/Ahd/2017 and 9 Others -8- also be for concealing income in that particular assessment year, which concealment was revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee's possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kanhaiyalal [2008] 299 ITR 19, where it held that- "We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the assessment has to be, with respect to the particular assessment year, relating to the concerned previous year, and the income derived, or found by the Department to have been derived, or earned, by the assessee, during particular previous year, has to be assessed during the relevant assessment year only, and assessment of such income cannot be shifted to any other past or future years, so much so that there may be cases, where the right of the Department to assessment may have been lost on account of passage of limitation also."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1