Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1253 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of share capital introduced in one of the company of the assessee i.e. M/s. Umkal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.- Held that:- CIT (A) failed to understand that the assessee has voluntarily surrendered the amount during the course of search and survey carried out at various premises. He stated that the surrender was made under section 132(4). The disclosure is also not bald. It was backed by the evidences and items of income as well as the amount of investments by the assessee. Hence, it cannot be brushed aside lightly. In view of this, we reverse the finding of the learned commissioner appeals, restore the finding of the learned Assessing officer, and confirm the addition of ₹ 29.50 lakhs made in the hands - on the assessee on substantive basis on account of the disclosure made during the course of such. Accordingly, ground number one and two of the appeal of the learned Assessing officer are allowed. Addition on account of cash paid - Held that:- Modification in disclosure from assessee to depreciation claim in case of companies, it also holds good for this grounds of appeal. Further during the course of search when the above paper when confronted to assessee he voluntarily admitted vide question number 18 of the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the act that the above sum was paid by assessee for purchase of one property at Gurgaon. For the reasons given by us in confirming the addition in ground number one and two of the appeal of revenue, we also reverse the finding of the learned commissioner appeals and confirm the addition of ₹ 1293832/– on account of cash paid. Addition based on seized documents during the course of search - Held that:- We are not in a position to uphold the above finding for the simple reason that assessee himself has confessed that h he is inflating cost of assets, therefore CIT (A) could not have held so. Further document found during the course of search are correct and belonging to the assessee is the presumption available to the revenue in accordance with the provisions of section 132(4A) and section 292C of the income tax act. However, presumption is rebuttable but assessee has not produced any evidence to rebut that presumption - it is not the claim of the assessee that no such transaction has taken place. He merely pleaded that it is a dumb documents. Therefore, such addition could not have been deleted. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of the CIT (A) and confirm the addition of ₹ 30 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. Ground no 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.
|