Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 410 - HC - Income TaxUndisclosed capital introduction – Provisions of section 132(4A) not considered – Held that:- In the audited balance-sheet, there is no land and building whereas in the seized BDM/18, there is an item of land and building - if there is a land and building, such an asset cannot be hidden - even the search did not unearth any such land and building - the cash and bank balance show an amount as per the seized BDM/18 and as per the audited balance-sheet is ₹ 15,88,517.60 - the Revenue has not been able to identify any bank account, which is having a balance of ₹ 1,13,774.43 as shown in BDM/18 - the sundry debtors show an amount of ₹ 13,119/- as per BDM/18 whereas as per the audited balance-sheet, the figure is ₹ 11,36,148/-, which is a higher figure in the audited balance-sheet. On the liabilities side, the sundry creditors shown, as per BDM/18, is ₹ 1,95,965.43 whereas as per the audited balance-sheet, the figure is ₹ 35,84,244.42, which is again a higher figure and this includes an amount of ₹ 28,48,604/- in respect of Dutta Automobiles, which are on the basis of contemporaneous document and evidence - There is also a loan from Union Bank, which is shown in the audited balance-sheet at ₹ 4,01,437/- but does not find place in BDM/18 - All these figures clearly show that BDM/18 is clearly not a true and fair document for the purpose of making an addition much less a presumption of undisclosed income - revenue has been able to show any corroboration regarding the discrepancy arising from the document seized to show that the source of undisclosed document was attributable to the assessee – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|