Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 158 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income - addition made on the basis of notings on a loose paper - Held that:- Firstly, the loose paper was found in the premises of Shri Sanjay Shah i.e. it was not found in the premises of the assessee. Secondly, it was in the possession of Shri Sanjay Shah so obviously it cannot be in possession of the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 132(4A) of the Act is not applicable as the paper was not found from the possession of the assessee. The most important fact to be considered at this point of time is that the assessee was staying in USA for almost 5 years from 29.11.2004 to 19.1.2009. The search was conducted on 21.2.2007 which means that on the date of search, the assessee was not even present in India. Lastly, concluding observations of the AO as mentioned in para-5 (supra) clearly suggest that the additions have been made on protective basis so this is a protective assessment. However, there is no reference about any case/assessee, in whose hands substantive additions have been made. Thus no reason of addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of estimated household expenses - Held that:- a similar addition has been made in the hands of the HUF of the assessee. The fate of that appeal is not known. However, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee was staying in USA for almost 5 years and during the impugned assessment year the assessee was in India only for 7 months, considering that the assessee has come from USA, possession of some money cannot be ruled out. We therefore do not find any logic in making the impugned addition. Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained bank deposit on the basis of bank statement - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that additional evidences were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) but it is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has transmitted all the additional evidences to the AO calling for a remand report. Instead of verifying the additional evidences, the AO left the matter at the discretion of the First Appellate authority. We find that after satisfying himself the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. We, therefore, decline to interfere - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment in silver - Held that:- The undisputed fact is that the silver utensils were found from the bed room of Mrs. Mrtudulaben Shah and even panchanama and seizure memo are also in the name of Shri Sanjay Shah. If the additions have been made purely on the basis of presumptions as laid down in Sec. 132(4A), then the silver was not found from the possession of the assessee. The AO has relied upon the statement of Shri Sanjay Shah. However, the contents of such statement has not been referred to in the assessment order nor in the order of the First Appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the basis of presumption of Sec. 132(4A) which on the facts of the case is not at all applicable - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of purchase of immoveable properties - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the property was purchased in the year 2003. That being the fact of the matter, the impugned addition cannot be considered for the year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|