Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1124 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of share application money - Held that:- The AO himself had written to CBI authorities for copies of documents, which did not invoke any response from CBI. The assessee vide letter dated 16.11.2009 had furnished the name, PAN, addresses, payment details to the AO. When there was CBI enquiry in assessee’s case, the notice of the AO did not invoke any response from share-applicants is plausible, however that cannot be the sole ground to justify the addition unless the AO is able to show that details furnished by the assessee in respect to the identity of the share-holders are bogus, their PAN details are false, addresses are wrong and payment details are false. The AO ought to have verified the facts during assessment proceedings or even he could have done when the ld. CIT (A) has forwarded all the details filed before him under Rule 46A, which he did not after seeking one month’s time and took three months to sent the remand report which was granted by CIT (A). So, we find that there was sufficient cause for non-filing of evidence before the AO. The AO ought to have scrutinized the evidence and in case, he nurtures any doubt about the veracity of the documents, the discretion is upon him to probe the matter further, which has not been done in the case in hand. He could not have discredited the documents, without giving any cogent reasons and material. Therefore, in view of the material filed by the assessee, we find that that the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon him. Addition u/s 69 - Held that:- The books of accounts of the assessee had been audited and entry reflected in the return of income and the balance sheet has been duly audited by a qualified chartered accountant. We find force in the submissions of the ld. AR that even if the AO could not have the opportunity to peruse the books of accounts of the assessee, during the assessment stage because, according to assessee, it was all with CBI and the fact of the matter is that even at the remand stage, the matter could have been looked into by the AO, which has not been done. So, in the light of the transactions through banking channel and audited books of account, it cannot be said that the investments were not reflected in the books of account when there is a clear finding of the CIT (A) that the investments in building WIP was duly accounted for in the books of account and the balance sheet has been duly audited by a qualified chartered accountant. Thus, in our opinion, when the bank account is disclosed, through which the cheques have been issued in each of the cases, the investment in the said plot and the construction thereon cannot be taken as not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same and decide the ground against the Revenue. Addition on account of purchase of plot - Held that:- We find that the addition in dispute has been made because of the inability of the assessee to produce the books of accounts of the assessee because all documents had been in the custody of CBI. We take note that the investments were installments for plots which were made to HUDA, a Government Agency and made through Demand Drafts and have passed through banking channels and the fact is that the books of the assessee was duly audited as per the statute and reflected in the balance sheet. The verification of the books ought to have been done by the AO during the remand proceedings which took three month’s time but he has not made any attempt to do so and the addition was based on conjectures and surmises. Since the installments for the plot have been paid through DD to a Government agency and the books of the assessee are statutorily audited as stated by the ld. CIT (A) on the basis of evidence, we do not find the impugned order to be perverse, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.
|