Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1221 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained cost of construction of resort - Held that:- Nothing specific have been explained as to how Assessing Officer made the above additions against the assessee. The Assessing Officer, without any justification or cause, did not place reliance upon the report of the DVO which is binding on the Assessing Officer. Since reference is made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO, therefore, Assessing Officer was bound to adopt valuation disclosed by the DVO in his report. However, the Assessing Officer merely placed reliance upon seized document which did not disclose specifically the quantum of cost of construction invested by the assessee in the resort. Therefore, the finding of the DVO in the valuation report that most of the papers are dumb documents, is relevant and admissible. The report of the DVO clearly shows that no investments in construction have been made in assessment year 2005-06. In assessment year 2006-07 we are of the view that since there is not much difference between the cost of construction reported by the DVO and disclosed by the assessee in the books of account of assessment year 2007-08, therefore, no addition can be made against the assessee even in the remaining assessment years 2006-08 and 2007-08. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of accretion in capital account of partners - Held that:- Since in this case the partners of the assessee firm have admitted their capital contribution in their accounts, therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee firm.We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete both the additions. See case of Metachem Industries [1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee Addition as income from business - Held that:- No specific arguments or material have been pointed out to show that how this addition is unjustified. The Assessing Officer noted certain functions have been organized during assessment year under appeal in the premises of the assessee and the assessee in their statement also admitted arranging such functions. The Assessing Officer found certain credit entries in the bank account of the assessee. Wherever assessee was able to explain the entries, no adverse view was taken by the Assessing Officer. However, rest of the addition of amount of ₹ 2,33,147/-, no explanation was filed before Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated the same to be income of the assessee. In the absence of any evidence or material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee.
|