Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 637 - AT - Income TaxAddition of trading results - @10% of gross profits as against 8.03% reflected by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The Assessee in this case is executing small contracts. The contracts are of same nature and regular books are maintained. No specific defect has been pointed out in the books maintained. It is further noted that on similar facts, AO has not made any addition in the assessment order passed u/s. 153A for A.Y. 2001-02, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. As such there is a clear contradiction in the approach of the AO. Furthermore, reference to net profit in the case of Vijay Kumar Kataria assessee's husband and assessee in the past is factually incorrect, as this is a case of search and assessment order was passed u/s. 153A. It is noted that no incriminating material or evidence was found or seized at the time of search and there is no reference to the same in the AO's order. Also see All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] wherein with reference to the assessment u/s. 153A it was held that any assessment that are abated, AO retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction conferred on him u/s. 153A for which assessment shall be made for each assessment year separately. In favour of assessee. Unexplained investment in property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No finding by the CIT(A) as to what was the source of investment. Merely because the payment was made through the bank account, it could be presumed that the source is explained and verified. Further the investment in this case as reflected in the assessee's statement of account needs to be corroborated from the books of accounts and records maintained by the assessee. As the books of accounts and records do not corroborate the investments, the addition has been made in this case. Hence, assessee's contention that no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found is not germane here. Hence, in the interest of justice, remit this issue to the file of the AO to consider the issue afresh, in light of the submissions made by the assessee. Addition made upon the valuation done by the DVO - value of the property in this case as reflected in the registered sale deed was Rs. 33,00,000/-. Reference u/s. 142A was made to the DVO who determined the value of the property at Rs. 63,74,700/- as against Rs. 33,00,000/- shown by the assessee. Hence, there was difference of Rs. 30,74,700/-. This was added to the income of the assessee. CIT (A) deleted the addition as there was no evidence of adverse material regarding payment of under hand consideration - Held that:- As no other incriminating material was found during the course of search CIT(A) is correct in this regard. Addition in this case has been made pursuant to search on the basis of Valuation Report of the DVO. It has been settled that in case of search in the absence of any incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made on the basis of Report of the DVO. See K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, Ernakulam & Anr. [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT], C.I.T. vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Thus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value declared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard on the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable.
|