Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 610 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash receipts - Search action u/s.132(1) - assessment proceedings u/s.153A r.w.s 143(3) - addition on the basis of Red Executive Diary and a loose paper bundle - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the amount received from Mr. Gulab Maharu Badgujar & Mrs. Badgujar are the liability of the firm and it is not the income of the assessee - Held that:- Answer to the relevant queries raised by the AO establish the existence of a partnership firm called M/s. Suyojit Baug. Therefore, merely because M/s.Suyojit Baug has not filed any return of income or has not been registered in our opinion cannot be a ground for treating the advance received by the said firm as income in the hands of the assessee. As regards the contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee has admitted in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) during the course of search regarding the additional income we find the same is also without any basis. There is no estoppel against statute. What is otherwise not taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Thus in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A) we find no infirmity in his order deleting the addition of ₹ 19 lakhs in the hands of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of unexplained expenditure - as per AO there are certain payments as per the SMSs which were not recorded in the books of account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- .CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has demonstrated that the amount of ₹ 2 lakhs related to M/s. Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and does not belong to the assessee and the addition was made by the AO on surmises. Further, the SMSs revealed the payment of the impugned amount to Shri Bhatt and the SMSs nowhere contain that the payment is made on 21-10-2010. There is no material before the AO to the proposition that the impugned payment is made on 21-10-2010 and that too by the assessee. 30. So far as the other amount of ₹ 3,37,500/- is concerned the CIT(A) deleted the same on the ground that the same has been claimed to be paid to Shri Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, an employee of Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for making payment to departmental labour. Since the assessee was a director of Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and such entries were already recorded in the books of account of the company, therefore, addition of the same in the hands of the assessee is not justified. The above factual findings given by the Ld.CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. - Decided in favour of assessee
|