Income Tax : This document provides a complete reference on compounding of offences, including application procedures, offence-wise charges, re...
Income Tax : The FAQs explain the revised CBDT guidelines on compounding offences under the Income-tax Act effective from 17 October 2024. They...
Income Tax : The FAQs explain the prosecution provisions under the Income-tax Act, covering offences such as tax evasion, non-payment of TDS/TC...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashed a Section 153C assessment, holding that a consolidated and defective satisfaction note invalidated jurisdiction...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in...
Income Tax : ITAT held reassessment under Sections 147/148 invalid because it was based on a pre-1 April 2021 third-party search, requiring pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
MGF Automobiles Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, was carried out in the case of assessee on 12.09.2007 and, therefore, notice u/s 153 A of Income Tax Act dated 17.10.2008 was issued to the assessee requiring it to file income tax returns. The assessee filed returns of income for assessment year 2004-05 and assessment year 2005-06 declaring Nil income in respect of assessment year 2004-05 and income of Rs.50,04,700/- for assessment year 2005-06.
In the present case it is apparent that on the date of search be on 12/09/2007, the assessments for assessment year 2004-05 & 2005-06 were already completed. There was no incriminating material found during search for these years as is apparent from arguments of Ld.
In the present case, in September 2007 the search was carried out in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma. The document Annexure RJ-1 was seized by the respondents. At the relevant time petitioner no. 1 was the Chief Health Secretary and this fact was within the knowledge
We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the value of the property in this case as reflected in the registered sale deed was Rs. 55,00,000/-. Reference u/s. 142A was made to the DVO by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee has placed reliance on some decisions. However, as afore-stated, the matter is purely factual, i.e., based on primary facts on which inference as to a finding of fact, i.e., the explanation with regard to that nature and source of credit being satisfactory or not, keeping the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case into account, is to be drawn. The decisions cited by the assessee have been with reference to the one of positive inference.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
In the present case, we find that the so-called information is undisclosed and what exactly that information was, is also not known. At one place in the affidavit of Deputy Director of Income-tax, it has been mentioned that he got information that there was a likelihood of the documents belonging to the DS Group being found at the residence of the petitioner. That by itself would amount only to a surmise and conjecture and not to solid information and since the search on the premises of the petitioner was founded on this so-called information, the search would have to be held to be arbitrary. It may also be pointed out that when the search was conducted on 21.01.2011, no documents belonging to the DS Group were, in fact, found at the premises of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty was leviable as the appellant itself had surrendered the said amount representing the difference in the sundry creditors in order to buy peace. He, thus, submitted that there was no concealment of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
As regards investment made in thandal business, there are no materials seized at the time of search of the assessee’s premises, to make this as a subject matter of block assessment. When the revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had been doing the business along with two others, there was no justifiable ground to assess Rs. 27 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.
After the search and the statement recorded under section 132(4), the assessee, on being issued with notice under section 153A did not file any return. The notice under section 153A was issued on 20-7-2006. It was only when assessment proceedings were taken up for consideration, did the assessee, by letter dated 14-8-2007, request that its return, filed on 31-10-2005,
