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 567 - AT - Income TaxAddition under section 69A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition u/s 69A of the Act by treating the seized cash as unexplained money of the assessee. On careful consideration of the assessment order and impugned order of the CIT(A), we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Officer did not appreciate the explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee rather he ignored some important facts which were self speaking and the same were rightly considered and noted by the CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee and in deleting the impugned addition of ₹ 25.75 lakh made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act. - Decided against revenue. Period of limitation - whether cross objections are time barred in view of provision of Section 253(4) ? - Held that:- the appeal was filed on 03.10.2011 and case was fixed for first hearing on 05.12.2011. From the record, we also see that no notice was issued to the assessee for the first date of hearing that was 05.12.2011 and the assessee approached the Assistant Registrar of ITAT, New Delhi firstly on 28.02.2012 and requested to provide copy of Form No.36 along with grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. The assessee subsequently filed reminder/applications on 03.10.2013, 22.02.2013 and 05.03.2013 with the same request which was finally redressed on 13.03.2013 when the Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi directed to provide copy of grounds of appeal to the assessee. In pursuance to last application dated 05.03.2013 admittedly assessee filed cross objection on 04.04.2013. In this situation, we are of the view that when the assessee has established that no notice along with copies of Form No.36 and grounds of appeal of the Revenue were served upon the assessee and the assessee could get copies of Form No.36 and grounds of the Revenue after restless efforts only on 13.03.2013 then the time limit prescribed in Section 253(4) of the Act would be reckoned only after receipt of complete notice along with copies of Form No.36 and grounds of appeal of the Revenue which is on 13.03.2013 in the present case. Hence, thus cross objection filed on 04.04.2013 cannot be alleged and held as time barred. Accordingly, legal objection of the Revenue is dismissed. Understatement of sale consideration of the property situated at 9/100, Shastri Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- From careful reading of assessment order as well as order of the CIT(A) the assessee has not submitted any evidence in support of this contention that the property was sold to a person who was already occupying the property in issue as tenant and there were court cases and other dispute under which the property was sold to the person who was already in possession of the property and, therefore, the assessee got less consideration in comparison to the fair market value. In this situation, we are an agreement with the conclusion of the authorities below, the estimate made by the Assistant Valuation Officer has not been demolished and rebutted by the assessee with the quite plausible explanation or acceptable evidence, therefore, view taken by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is justified and we are unable to see any infirmity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same on account of addition of ₹ 1.77 lakh made by the AO. At the same time, we further observed that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- by treating a gift as a part of sale consideration in respect of impugned property. The CIT(A) observed that AO has failed to adduce cogent evidence and record in support of understatement of sale consideration by the assessee in respect of said addition of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT Vs. George Henderson Co. Ltd. reported in (1967 (4) TMI 18 - SUPREME Court), CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthoot & Co (1972 (9) TMI 13 - SUPREME Court), K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO (1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court), CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. (1986 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1992 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) and ratio of these decisions is that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated in the sale deed, was received no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. In the present case, the CIT(A) rightly noted that Assessing Officer had failed to bring any evidence against the assessee to establish of record that there was understatement of sale consideration by the assessee by ₹ 5,00,000/- which was received by the assessee in the garb of gift in the name of Shri Ashish Jain son of assessee. - Decided against revenue. Undisclosed income - assessee had received a payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- from M/s J.V. Industries Pvt. Ltd - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The confusion arose before the AO due to incompleteness in the facts and details submitted before the AO which were subsequently explain by way of filing details submission, statement of Bank account and other relevant details during first appellate proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee offered long term capital gain to the extent of ₹ 3,47,817/- on the sale of 10,000 shares of M/s J.V. Industries Pvt. Ltd. which were sold to M/s Nirman Securities Ltd. and the assessee received sale consideration through account payee cheque which was also credited to his saving Bank account. Under above noted facts and circumstances, we are an agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of ₹ 5,00,000/- and its further used for repayment of advance against sale agreement and in this situation addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the first appellate authority. We are unable to see any infirmity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order in this regard and we upheld the same - Decided against revenue. Addition in the hands of the assessee holding that Shri Ashish Jain was a minor - unexplained source of repayment of advance to Shri Vinod Kumar Jain against the sale agreement - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- When the amount of gift was routed through banking channels from donor Smt. Kaushalya Jain to donee Shri Ashish Jain which was further advanced as loan to the assessee, then it may also be presumed that the gift was given by Smt. Kaushalya Jain to the minor son of the assessee out of love and affection and also to clear the clouds and bitterness in the relations between with her brother i.e. the assessee. Under above noted facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the CIT(A) after considering the detailed submission of the assessee rightly concluded that the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on amount of unexplained source of repayment of advance to Shri Vinod Kumar Jain against the sale agreement is not sustainable. We are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted receipt of cash claimed to have been received from Sheel Kumar Jain - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- When admittedly Shri Sheel Kumar Jain was expired on 02.11.2005 prior to finalization of assessment order on 19.12.2006 then it was not possible for the assessee to produce Late Shri Sheel Kumar Jain during assessment proceeding. The Assessing Officer could have verified the factum of repayment of advance to Shri Sheel Kumar Jain by examining and verifying the statement of accounts inter alia the capital account of the assessee with his sole proprietary firm M/s Jain Metal Works but instead of making any further enquiry examination or verification the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and supportive evidence of the assessee at the threshold that without making any enquiry examination of verification and proceeded to make addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- without bringing doubt any sustainable allegation or incriminating material against the assessee and the same was rightly deleted by the first appellate authority with the aforesaid disallowances and conclusion. We decline to interfere of the conclusion of the CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Rejection of books of accounts - Enhancement of income of the assessee by AO adopting average GP rate of preceding assessment years and in making addition of ₹ 16,96,788/- - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No hesitation to hold the Assessing Officer reject the books of account of the assessee without any valid reason and without following due procedure as per provision of the Act and without any justified and cogent basis and the rejection of books of account AO was rightly dismissed by the CIT(A). Turning to the issue of addition of ₹ 16,96,788/- applying difference of GP rate of 4.1% calculated on the basis of average of GP rate of immediately preceding three assessment years, we note that since the rejection of books of account have not been found to be sustainable then the Assessing Officer cannot be held as justified in making the addition by applying difference in GP rate of 4.1% on the basis of average of preceding three years and addition in this regard cannot be held as sustainable and in accordance with law in absence of justified and reasonable basis. We are of the considered opinion that if explanation, evidence or any material is submitted by the assessee in support of its return then it should be accepted after due examination and verification and unless the same is controverted or rebutted by the cogent admissible evidence by the AO arbitrary addition by taking 4.1% difference is not correct. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that considering the G.P. rate of the earlier three years the G.P. rate of 5% of turnover would be most appropriate and justified. Hence, we direct the AO to adopt 5% of G.P. rate and calculate the disallowance accordingly. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 7 & 7.1 of the revenue are restored to the file of the AO for the limited purposes as directed above. - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|