Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 750 - ITAT MUMBAILack of evidence for implicating Assessee - Assessee was alleged to be running a refund racket, wherein the assessee would solicit the refund in the cases of salaried employees with private organization in connivance with some CAs and trusts. According to the deposition made u/s 131 dated 17.01.1994, the assessee explained the modus operandi for such fraudulent refunds – Held that:- Search u/s 132 did not indicate anything adverse against the assessee with regard to the fraudulent refunds - There was no evidence despite the search operation against him - Only evidence that is the formation of basis of addition was statement recorded u/s 131, wherein the assessee had only explained the modus for claiming of fraudulent refund. In this statement also, the assessee had not admitted to have been the real beneficiary – Addition made is deleted – Decided against the Revenue. Additions u/s 69A and 69C - AO has added Rs.5,50,036/- on account of jewellery found at the time of search, Rs.90,000/- as unexplained cash found and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of furniture and fixtures inventorised at the time of search – Held that:- For Jewellery: On the date of search, assessee was still a bachelor and the only lady in the house was his mother and since the entire jewellery found and seized were ladies, it actually belonged to his mother. Even in the remand report, the AO could not controvert this fact – Cash: Cash was duly reflected in the books of the firm and the books are with the department, therefore no addition can be made as the cash is not unexplained – Investment in furniture and fixtures: Submission by Assessee that flat belonged to the parents of the assessee, which was purchased in 1986 and the furniture & fixtures was also purchased around the same time or immediately thereafter. No separate evidence, indicating that the furniture & fixtures belonged to the assessee or the assessee spent his undisclosed money to acquire the same – Decided against the Revenue. Addition on account of salary and commission - Assessee was a partner in M/s Aggarwal Trading Company and as per the Deed of Partnership, the assessee would receive Rs.48,000/- as salary and commission @ 2% of turnover (Rs.4,00,000/-, being 2% of Rs.2,00,00,000/- turnover) – Held that:- As per the arguments and on the basis of remand report of A.O., it has been held that salary be added @ 37500/- in place of 40000/- and no addition on account of commission be made – Decided against the Revenue. Addition on account of commission out of Hawala loans – Held that:- Commissioner(A) concluded to tax 10% of Rs.89,602/- being alleged commission, out of hawala loan transactions earned by the appellant - The addition has been based primarily on the statement recorded under section 132(4), wherein the assessee has accepted to be having hawala business - Assessee has not been able to bring out any evidence, which could prove otherwise – Order of Commissioner(A) confirmed.
|