132

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

Decision on Loose Papers found during the Search Section 132
ADVOCATE ATHARV MUNDRA FCA BPMUNDRA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA hold that The assessment orders passed in the search case is time barred where the assessments were not completed within two years from the end of the month the date of the Panchnama last drawn Section 125BE(b) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 345-350 OF 2012 IN THE CASE OF Anil Minda and Others Vs. CIT on 24.03.2023
The assessee requested to the Ld. AO to furnish the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act which was not provided and the assessee retracted the statement through an affidavit confirming that the search officers recorded contrary to the answer given by them and such statements are not voluntarily and not the reliable evidence as signed under pressure. Further there is no independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the statement.The moot question in these circumstances that whether these statements are voluntarily and can be considered as reliable evidence. ITAT Pune decided on 24 June, 2021 in the case DCIT vs Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali. Kindly click the link to get full order. FCA bpmundra 9314501680 bpmundra2@gmail.com.
An assessee has not filed the appeal. Now while filing cross objection on appeal filed by the department, the assessee submit an application in Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules raising a new ground on which neither any decision rendered by the CIT(A) nor such ground was raised in appeal to CIT(A). The moot question is can the assessee file an application? ITAT Pune decided on 24 June, 2021 in the case DCIT vs Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali. Best Course of action is to file appeal and if there is delay in appeal then file with an application of condonation of delay. Kindly click the link to get full order. FCA bpmundra 9314501680 bpmundra2@gmail.com.
Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C
Section 153A, 153C, 132(4). If no incriminating material is found during search, no addition could be made in respect of the assessments that had become final. Statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. PCIT Vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) & ORS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI on Feb 12, 2021. If any statement was to be construed as an incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched (as referred to in Section 153A), then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person.
Search and Seizure- No seizure of jewellery when it is stock of the assessee as the protection is provided in proviso appearing after sub clause – (iii) to sub Section (1) of Section 132 for stock. Further Satisfaction note clearly disclosed that formulation of “reason to believe” was post search and seizure. Action of search and seizure is bad in law. Saddle the Deptt. with costs at Rs.50,000/-. KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs.Principal Director of Income Tax. Jan 9, 2020 IT-CASES-214-2020
Section 132 When no incriminating material is shown by the Ld. AO therefore disallowance made only on ad-hoc basis is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. SHARUK PASSI & ANR. vs.DCIT ITAT Delhi order on Mar 19, 2020. IT-CASES-213-2020
Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
Section 132, 153A Assessment was completed under section 143(1). Completed assessments can be interfered with by A.O. while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. ACIT v. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 30.9.2020 Delhi ITAT IT-CASES-211-2020