Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 877 - AT - Income TaxAdditions made on the basis of papers found in the course of search - Held that:- The finding of the learned CIT(A) that the additions of ₹ 54,63,230/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and ₹ 9,17,200/- for A.Y. 2007- 08, in the case of hand are factually unsustainable since the said scored out entries on the right side of the diary are not in the handwriting of Shri Narendra Jain (partner of the appellant firm) who has disowned knowledge of their context and that they were recorded by Shri Kartik, a former employee of the assessee firm who was not examined by the AO. In these factual circumstances and placing reliance on the decisions of the ITAT, Pune Bench in Prabhat Chandra S. Jain (2015 (11) TMI 402 - ITAT PUNE ) and S.K. Gupta (1998 (2) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-C ), in support of the proposition that additions made on the basis of papers found in the course of search without bringing any corroborative evidence is not factually sustainable, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the additions of ₹ 54,63,230/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and ₹ 9,17,230/- in A.Y. 2007-08 are unwarranted and unjustified Allowance of telescopic benefit - Held that:- As find from the record that the learned CIT(A) after factually examining the claims of the assessee, and the findings of the AO has correctly upheld the AO’s action in treating the proportionate sale proceeds of ₹ 36,81,818/-, including ₹ 26.40 lakhs said to have been received from Shri Nazar, as income of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 and at the same time allowing the assessee’s plea that telescoping is to be allowed in respect of income of ₹ 26.40 lakhs admitted by the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08, on account of sale consideration received from Shri Nazar from out of the addition of ₹ 36,81,818/- under section 68 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07. We find that apart from raising the above grounds, the learned D.R. for Revenue has not been able to bring on record any material evidence to controvert the above findings of the learned CIT(A), and with which we concur. In this factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere with or deviate from the factual findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) and therefore uphold his order allowing telescoping of ₹ 26.40 lakhs in this year on account of income of ₹ 26.40 lakhs admitted by the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08 on account of sale consideration received from Shri Nazar.
|