Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 966 - AT - Income TaxBlock assessment - Search and seizure - served several notices to the assessee(s) u/s 158BD - Held that:- As it is seen that the returns filed by the assessee disclosed the amount of additions, which were made by the AO in the present assessment order passed under section 158BD - since the transactions made in the assessment year under appeal are found to have been disclosed in the return of income of the assessee already filed in the regular course, the addition made in this assessment order is not sustainable and accordingly, the CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO in the assessment order - Decided in favor of the assessee Addition on protective basis - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made on protective basis by holding that the Assessing Officer made the substantive addition in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar Shah husband of the assessee in whose case the addition was deleted and as such the Assessing Officer should not have made the addition again on protective basis in the case of the assessee. By holding such opinion, the CIT(Appeals) overlooked the basic issue as to whom should the sources of deposits in the bank account be traced to. Since both protective and substantive, additions have been deleted the interests of the Revenue has been jeopardised. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to look into the sources of the funds made towards investment of auction money by the assessee thus giving a clean chit to the assessee. Her further observation that the Assessing Officer has made post-search enquiry from the Excise Department. In contraction of section is also incorrect since the Assessing Officer based his enquiry on seized documents. Since the seized documents did not name any other person it was for the assessee to explain the sources of deposit of auction money. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate this fact.
|