Income Tax : Budget 2025 revises block assessment rules for search cases, covering undisclosed income, assessment procedures, penalties, and ti...
Income Tax : Explore reintroduction of block assessments under Income Tax Act via Finance Act 2024, its implications, challenges, and way forwa...
Income Tax : Understand the compounding of offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including categories, charges, and procedures as per the Fi...
Income Tax : Learn about prosecution under IT Act sections 275A to 280, including penalties and conditions for launching prosecution....
Income Tax : Learn about the compounding of offences under direct tax laws, including eligible offences, competent authorities, and the process...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the fili...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur sets aside Resonance Eduventures assessment orders, citing mechanical approval by Addl. CIT without proper applicatio...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court held that section 12AA empower the Principal Commissioner to pass order cancelling registration granted u/s. 12A...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that developer is entitled for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act for carrying out development w...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
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,
In the present case, the assessees being the builders, had the option to recognize their income either on percentage completion method or on project completion method. Therefore, it was not certain to hold that the assessees were liable at all to file returns under section 139(1). Whether the assessees had recognized their income for the impugned assessment years is also not clear. The returns were filed after search made under section 132 but before the issue of notice under section 153A.
There is no doubt that the authority concerned, who issues the warrant for searches and seizure, ought to have the necessary materials before him to have a reason to believe that an order for search and seizure is warranted. However, it is clear that if certain materials are available before the authority concerned to arrive at his conclusion, then it is not for this Court to examine as to whether there were sufficient materials or grounds to arrive at such a conclusion.
