Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 230 - ITAT AHMEDABADRe-opening the assessment - addition as undisclosed income on account of unaccounted receipts - Held that:- Taking into account the submissions of the assessee, the stand of the AO, reasoning of the CIT (A) in sustaining the action of the AO and also in conformity with the rulings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of CIT v. S.C. Sethi (2006 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT, RAJASTHAN), CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 57.5 lakhs made by the AO in the hands of the assessee as the AO had solely depended upon the information received from the Investigation Wing of Pune. AO had failed to substantiate the same with any credible documentary evidence to the effect that the assessee had indeed received the alleged cash payment of ₹ 57.5 lakhs from Shri Sohanraj Mehta as the assessee had categorically pleaded before the AO that he was making purchases through Ambika Distributors who were the C & F Agents for Gujarat Region. The total unaccounted sales effected by Shri Sohanraj Mehta C & F of RMD Gutkha on behalf of Dhariwal Industries Limited for the period of April 2003 to Feb 2008 was ₹ 345.72 crores (approx). The unaccounted income for the AY 2004-05 was arrived at ₹ 40,88,32,514/-, the same was added substantively in the case of M/s. Dharival Industries Limited and concluded the assessment for the AY 2004-05 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2011 by the ACIT, C.C. 1(1), Pune. Thus once the alleged sum of ₹ 57.5 lakhs was subjected to tax in the hands of Dhariwal Industries Limited, the same cannot be subjected to suffer further tax. This view has been fairly conceded by the CIT (A) that the appellant is right to the extent that no income can be taxed twice......" The AO had candidly admitted that during the course of assessment proceeding itself the assessee had sought permission to cross examine Shri Sohanraj Mehta which was summarily rejected by taking refuge ".....Due to paucity of time, the cross examination could not be granted". This stand of the AO, to view it mildly, is against the spirit of judicial pronouncements. Thus the AO had merely come to a conclusion based on a statement of a third party, without bringing any credible documentary evidence to the contrary on record to nail the assessee. No reliance can be placed on the statements of a third person whose premises were subjected to a search since he had retracted his own statement made earlier on oath and precisely the assessee has been denied to cross-examine him to bring out the truth. Thus the addition made for ₹ 57,50,000/- by the AO on account of undisclosed income, which was further sustained by the CIT(A) requires to be deleted - also ground No.1 raised by the assessee with respect to reopening of the assessment u/s 148 is dismissed and ground No.2 with respect to addition on account of undisclosed income is allowed in favour of the assessee.
|