Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 345 - AT - Income TaxDeletion made u/s 69 of the Act Unexplained investment Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the AO has not independently established that any such transaction has in fact, taken place - From the perusal of the seized material, it is also not clear whether the same pertained to an asset, liability, loan, advance or any other detail - There is no other document or evidence to suggest that the assessee has advances/ paid a sum of Rs.31,68,750/- to one Kalubhai - there is no justification for presuming that the appellant must have paid a sum of Rs.31,68,750 - The AO has also not carried out any inquiry with the other party of the transaction to find out the facts and has simply rejected the explanation of the appellant and addition has been made on estimate basis thus, there is no justification for making the addition on merely presumptive basis - Revenue could not point out any specific error in the order of CIT(A) revenue could not bring any material to show that Rs 31,68,750/- was any actual transaction made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the relevant seized document was dumb document having no corroborative material found thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Deletion u/s 69B of the Act Unaccounted investment Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the AO had not pointed out any single defect in the books of accounts of the assessee and had accepted the payment made to seller of bungalow as genuine transactions - the difference in the cost shown and the cost estimated by the DVO is minor and is less than 15% - Revenue could not point out any specific error in the order of the CIT(A) - No material could be brought on record to show that the assessee has made any payment over and above the amount mentioned in the registered deed which was also accepted by the State Government for the purposes of levy of stamp duty thus, there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Addition on account of unaccounted business receipts Held that:- Merely from the document it cannot be concluded that the assessee in fact received Rs 10,00,000/- on 03.06.2005 from any unspecified person and that too in respect of his business on revenue account - no material could be brought on record by the revenue by making a proper inquiry in respect of the said seized document to show that the seized document shows business receipt of Rs 10,00,000/- by the assessee on 03.06.2005 - In absence of any such material having been brought on record by the AO by making specific inquiry there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.
|