Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2430 - AT - Income TaxAddition on net profit on account of money receipts - sale of bogus tenancy flat - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the assessee sold the flats at the market rates and there was no proof that on money was received by the assessee on sale of flats/from tenants, thus, no presumption can be drawn, in the absence of any material, that any under hand money transacted between the assessee and the tenants. As mentioned earlier the tenants were certified by MHADA, which rather contains more tenants, therefore, the allegation of creation of bogus tenancy is not substantiated. Neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and even before this Tribunal no material was produced at any stage that the assessee received on money/under hand money, thus, merely, on the basis of statement of one or two person, the addition made on presumptive basis cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, presumption cannot take the shape of evidence, however it strong may be. It is also noted that even the ld. Assessing Officer vide his remand report dated 11/01/2011 categorically stated that the impugned five parties were actually given possession of the property in lieu of the surrender of the tenancy rights. Even in the remand report, it has been concluded the by Assessing Officer that the noting on the seized paper and the agreement does not tally and rather the parties received the area as per the agreement, thus, the totality of facts, clearly indicates that the addition was merely made on presumptive basis, which cannot stand on its legs, therefore, the addition was rightly deleted, consequently, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue Net profit on sale of bogus tenancy of 22 flat in Siddesh apartment and shop in riddhi apartment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Because the addition was made merely on the basis of certain statements and without corroborating the same with the material whereas, as mentioned earlier, as per the MHADA the actual tenants were 101, whereas, as per the assessee, they were only 97, thus, there is no question of bogus tenancy, more specifically when alternate accommodation was provided to, claimed, 97 persons in lieu of surrender of their tenancy rights. So far as, seizure of incriminating material from the residence of Ms. Chola Joshi is concerned, we have already deliberated upon the same in preceding para of this order. It is also worth mentioning that while deliberating upon the issue, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already placed reliance upon various judicial pronouncements, therefore, the same are not being repeated, being, matter of record and may be considered to be looked upon/considered by us. Thus, on this ground, we find no merit, in the appeal of the Revenue, consequently, we affirm the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue
|