Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2022 (11) TMI 1332 - AT - Income Tax
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - receipt of sale consideration of sale of listed shares unexplained - unexplained commission expenditure u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, a specific request was made for a copy of investigation report as well as copies of statements recorded of different persons. The assessee is noted to have rebutted whatever details were provided by the AO and had sought cross-examination as well. Hence, the facts involved in the present case are noted to be distinguishable from the above case. Further, in respect of the circumstantial evidences the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Swati Bajaj case [2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has not disturbed the settled position of law that circumstantial evidences can be looked into only when direct evidences are not available.
In the instant case, direct irrefutable evidences were made available to the AO and, therefore, ignoring the direct evidences and jumping to circumstantial evidences is not justified even if one refers to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. Moreover, as noted by us earlier, this issue at hand is squarely covered by the binding judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in favour of the assessee, and, therefore following the judicial discipline, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference since we have the benefit of guidance on this subject by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, which is binding upon us.
As decided by Ripu Sudan Kundra [2021 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI] additions made by the AO was purely based only on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without there being any tangible evidence on record against the assessee and, therefore deleted the same.
No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made u/s 68 of the Act and the consequent addition of unexplained commission expenditure made u/s 69 of the Act and uphold to the same.
AO has noted that the primary sources of income of the assessee were salary, rental income, other sources and capital gains. The AO has however not been able to bring on record any material or evidence unearthed during search which would reveal as to from which income-earning activity did the assessee derive such unaccounted monies to support his theory that he had routed such unaccounted monies in the guise of bogus capital gains. Before us, the assessee has placed on record copies of the panchnamas, details of cash & valuables found, details of documents impounded etc. and the Revenue was unable to point to any specific item or evidence which would lend credence to their case. Although these aspects are not sufficient to draw definite conclusions but coupled with the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing, it does lend persuasive value to the case of the assessee.
For the above reasons therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 & 69C. Decided in favour of assessee.