Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1048 - AT - Income TaxAdditions made on account of alleged on money receipt in respect of Ratnakar III scheme and Ratnakar IV scheme - reliance on loose sheet - Held that:- The assessing authority has no power to disturb the sale price shown except in three cases. The first is under Section 145 of the Act. Where the sale of properties is part of the business of the assessee, the Assessing Officer, if he is of the opinion that the accounts are not correct and complete, may proceed to reject the books of accounts and thereafter make a best judgment assessment of the income in the manner prescribed by Section 144. The second is the case where Section 50C of the Act is invoked on the basis of the prices fixed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities of the State Government. That section, it is pointed out, however, applies only in the computation of capital gains and cannot BE availed by the Revenue where the profits of the business are to be computed. The third is the case of section 92BA inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w. e. f. 01.04.2013. This section gives power to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the profits shown by the assessee in cases of “specified domestic transactions”, where the aggregate of such transactions entered into in the relevant accounting year exceeds a sum of ₹ 5 crores. Except in these three situations, the Act does not permit the enhancement of the profits of the business shown by the assessee. The loose sheet of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible u/s. 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. See CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CBI Versus VC. SHUKLA & ORS. [1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT ] Moreover, the Assessing Office did not make any inquiry from buyers of flat in respect of actual prices paid by them. He also did not make any other inquiry in order to corroborate his conclusion. There is no incriminating evidence to show that the assessee has sold the flats at a higher rate. In our understanding of the facts, the impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as “dumb document” which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee
|