Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 168 - AT - Income TaxAddition relating to the cash seized by the department - Held that:- AO has taken statement from the carrier Shri Ashok Kumar Singh also, who has also confirmed that the amount that was handed over to Shri Anup Kumar Shah, was received by him from shri S.K.Jain. The statements taken from the three persons clearly show that the amount of ₹ 15.00 lakhs belonged to the assessee-company herein. The statement of Shri S.K.Jain, who was holding the responsible position of “Vice President” has not been rebutted by the assessee company. In view of the above, there was no necessity for the AO to invoke the presumption provided u/s 132(4A) of the Act in the hands of Shri Anup Kumar Shah. Further there is no compulsion under the Act that the AO should necessarily invoke the provisions of sec.132(4A) of the Act, as the words used in that section are “may be presumed”. In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Ld CIT(A) on this issue. We also notice that the assessee has failed to furnish any credible explanation with regard to the unaccounted cash referred above. In view of the above, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the addition made by the AO. - Decided against assessee Addition pertaining to the unaccounted payments claimed to have been paid to the officials of NHAI - addition was deleted by the Ld CIT(A) on the ground that the AO did not confront the NHAI officials and the assessee company’s officials - Held that:- AO presumed that the amount mentioned above represent “amount in lakhs of rupees”. Accordingly, the AO has taken “1.00” as “One lakh rupees”. Considering the quantum of work undertaken by the company and the position of the officials mentioned above, in our view, it would be reasonable to presume that the amounts noted in the seized materials represent “amounts in lakhs”. The assessee, having failed to rebut the presumption, in our view, the AO was justified in making the addition of ₹ 30,25,850/-. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the addition made by AO.- Decided against assessee Addition on non finding the vouchers - Held that:- In the relevant vouchers, it was mentioned that the sum of ₹ 12.50 lakhs was paid to Shri S.K.Jain. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee filed bank statements. On verification of the same, the Ld CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the transactions pertaining to ₹ 12.50 lakhs could not be identified in the bank statements. Ld CIT(A) has also given a finding that the amount of ₹ 12.50 lakhs was not accounted in the books of account of Joint venture concern. Before us, though the assessee reiterated its claim that the transactions pertaining to ₹ 12.50 lakhs belong to the Joint Venture concern, yet no material was produced to contradict the findings given by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision reached by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.- Decided against assessee
|