Ujwala Nilesh Chechani, Jalna V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1, Aurangabad

ITA 713/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0616 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 234B; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. Year 1 713/PUN/2021 Ujwala Nilesh Chechani, Plot No.343 K 517, Priyadarshani Colony, Sambhaji Nagar Road, Jalna- 431203. PAN : AGQPC2630N ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. 2012-13 2 714/PUN/2021 Archana Anil Chechani, Plot No.B-76, Near Balaji Mandir, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna- 431203. PAN : AFSPC1874M ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. 2012-13 3 715/PUN/2021 Anjali Atish Chechani, Plot No.B-76, Near Balaji Mandir, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna- 431203. PAN : AGOPC5108R ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. 2012-13 4 716/PUN/2021 Mrs. Ramkanwar S. Chechani, Plot No.343 K 517, Priyadarshani Colony, Sambhaji Nagar Road, Jalna- 431203. PAN : ADYPC2436R ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad. 2012-13 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These four assessee’s as many appeals; for assessment year 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-12, Pune’s separate orders; all Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2022 ITA Nos.713 to 716/PUN/2021 2 dated 29.10.2021, passed in case nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2021- 22/1036655520(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2021-22/1036654677(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2021-22/1036654815(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/- 2021-22/1036654527(1); respectively involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Cases called twice. None appears at assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the all the instant appeals have arisen as a result of the department’s search action dated 02.05.2013 conducted involving M/s. Mantri Group of Jalna. The departmental authorities appear to have come across various seized documents (details given in all assessment orders dated 08.12.2017) which made the Assessing Officer to set section 148/147 mechanism in motion culminating him section 68/69 unexplained cash deposits and investments addition; as the case may be, involving varying sum(s) in these four cases. 3. This is what leaves all these assessees aggrieved raising three folded arguments challenging validity of section 148/147 proceedings, correctness of the forgoing impugned addition(s) on merits as well as interest computation u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. ITA Nos.713 to 716/PUN/2021 3 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to first and foremost issue raised herein regarding validity of impugned section 148/147 proceedings. The assessees plead in their respective grounds that it is only section 153C of the Act which comes into operation when any incriminating evidence is found and seized during the course of search and therefore, both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in taking recourse to the impugned reopening mechanism. I find no merit in the assessees’ instant legal ground. It is made clear first of all that the search herein is dated 02.05.2013. The relevant statutory expression applicable in section 153C at that point of time read “belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A”. There is further no dispute that the legislature amended the same vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.06.2015 adding “pertains or pertain to ......... “relates to” which does not apply qua the earlier searches with retrospective effect. This is not the assessees’ case that any foregoing incriminating material in-fact belonged to them as per the statutory provision applicable on the date of search u/s 153C of the Act. I accordingly reject the assessees’ instant identical legal ground in all these four cases. 5. Next comes the second issue of correctness of unexplained deposits and investment additions made in all these cases. It is an ITA Nos.713 to 716/PUN/2021 4 admitted fact that these assessees had been afforded sufficient opportunities during the course of reassessment proceedings to explain source regarding both the foregoing issues. They had not even filed their returns before the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the assessment discussion in “lead” appeal ITA No.713/PUN/2021 suggests that the Assessing Officer had not only issued section 142(1) notices on various occasions but also he initiated section 271(1)(b) penalty proceedings alleging non-cooperation. This is coupled with the fact that all these assessees are fair enough in not pleading any violation of the principle of natural justice in any of their respective grounds. I therefore find merit in Revenue vehement arguments supporting the impugned addition in principle. The assessees fail in their respective substantive grounds. There is yet another equally important aspect of the instant issue. These assessees have pleaded that the learned lower authorities had made double addition(s) regarding both credit as well as debit sides thereby treating the same as unexplained. I find force in the instant latter plea since both these sides do not deserve to be added i.e. credit side as well as debit side qua deposits and investments in issue. Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that the instant computation issue requires the Assessing Officer’s factual verification who shall ensure that these assessees shall not be ITA Nos.713 to 716/PUN/2021 5 doubly assessed in case they have made the impugned investments from the credits/deposits which have already been treated as unexplained. Ordered accordingly. The assessees’ instant identical grounds are partly accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. 6. The assessees’ last substantive grievance regarding section 234A, 234B and 234C interest is restored back to the Assessing Officer as consequential in nature issue. 7. These assessees’ four appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Ordered accordingly. Order pronounced on this 31 st day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31 st May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.