Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 148 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained advances – Initial burden discharged or not - Addition made on substantive basis - Held that:- When all the very additions were considered by the ITAT and have been confirmed or considered in the case of firm M/s Ghindmal Kauromal or/and in the case of Roop Chand or/and in the case of Nanak Ram (Dropadi Devi), then the addition cannot be made again in the hands of the assessee - the documents were found in the custody and control of the assessee but when the assessee conveyed that either it pertains to firm or to other persons namely Nanak Ram or Roop Chand, and when both CIT (A) and ITAT have accepted this plea then initial burden was discharged - when the very documents have already been considered by the Tribunal then certainly double addition, one in the hand of the person in whose custody the documents are found and secondly in the case of the other person where substantive addition is made, is not permitted under the IT Act - the addition again cannot be made on the same documents/loose papers in the hands of the assessee and the ITAT rightly came to the aforesaid conclusion. Protective addition was made in the case of assessee whereas substantive addition was either made in the case of M/s Ghindmal Kauromal or/and in the case of Roop Chand or/and in the case of Nanak Ram (Dropadi Devi) and when the above additions have finally been sustained, as observed by the ITAT in the case of M/s Ghindmal Kauromal or/and in the case of Roop Chand or/and Nanak Ram (Dropadi Devi), then it is a finding of fact and no question of law can be said to arise with the facts found by the ITAT - the addition of these very documents had been sustained in some other case relating to the search or other partners or in the case of M/s Ghindmal Kauromal or/and in the case of Roop Chand or/and Nanak Ram (Dropadi Devi), then the Tribunal had rightly deleted the addition as the same cannot be or could not have been made in two hands – tribunal rightly rejected the reference application as it does not give rise to any question of law fit for reference - the reference application does not involve any question of law – Decided against revenue.
|