Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1055 - AT - Income TaxBlock assessment u/s 158BC & 158BD - Non filing of Income Tax returns - assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment years falling within the block period before the date of search - Revenue Authorities had rejected the acknowledgements of the returns filed by the assessee because it did not match with the records maintained by the Ld.Revenue Authorities - HELD THAT:- Revenue Authorities have not conducted any investigation on that regard. The Ld.Revenue Authorities also ought to have examined the copy of the returns filed by the assessee that was produced before them and thereafter arrived at a proper conclusion. Further the Ld.Revenue Authorities had not taken any coercive action for the alleged fraud committed by the assessee. In this situation we can neither hold the matter in favour of the Revenue nor the assessee - Addition made by the AO in the block assessment is devoid of merits because there is no conclusive finding by the Revenue that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment years 1997- 98 to 2003-04. Hence we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition . Case followed SHRI RAKESH SARIN, [2011 (6) TMI 977 - ITAT CHENNAI] Undisclosed investments - HELD THAT:- Since the facts and the issue being same, the decision rendered in the case of the assessee’s father Shri Rakesh Sarin [2011 (6) TMI 977 - ITAT CHENNAI] and mother Smt. Renu Sarin . [2019 (4) TMI 1054 - ITAT CHENNAI] holds good in the case of the assessee also and accordingly we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition respect to the investment made in Insurance Policies with HDFC, ₹ 88,490/- being the investment made in shares, investment in UTI, investment in shares of Aashna Invt. P. Ltd., City Union Bank & Sundaram Finance, fixed deposit with Andhra Bank, investment in RBI Bonds and the investment in UTI, ICICI, IDBI & HDFC relief bonds. Addition of cash deposit in SB account & Current Account and addition of ₹ 8,10,656/- towards Recurring deposit - AO added the same to the undisclosed income of the assessee because the transactions were not accounted in the assessee’s books of accounts - HELD THAT:- AO had failed to examine the return filed by the assessee and the explanation submitted thus we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made. Addition towards pronotes - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the pro-notes were incomplete in all aspects and therefore presumption cannot be made that the assessee had lend money though there is some air of doubt. Moreover peak credit concept may also be applicable in the case of the assessee due to rotation of advances and repayments. It appears that the Ld.AO has not examined those aspects. There is every probability that if such exercise would have been carried out the source of the amount utilized in the finance business would have been explainable as the amount utilized in the business would have been much less than the addition made by the Ld.AO. Therefore adhoc addition of the amount mentioned in the entire pro-notes is not justifiable. Further the Ld.AO has also not made any investigation in the market to find out whether any amount borrowed from the assessee was pending to be returned to the assessee Addition being the amount advanced to M/s. Shibi Travels as unexplained advances - HELD THAT:- No merit in the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. The assessee had explained the transaction as advance extended to M/s. Shibi Travels against collateral security of a ticket to US. These facts could have been confirmed and verified by the Ld.Revenue Authorities from M/s. Shibi Travels which they have failed to do so. Hence we do not find any merit in the findings of the Ld.Revenue Authorities who had simply rejected the explanation offered by the assessee without verifying the facts. Addition being the amount advanced to M/s. Nadiadwala Grandson as unexplained advances - HELD THAT:- From the above facts it appears that the assessee had explained before the Ld.Revenue Authorities that the amount advanced to M/s.Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment for ₹ 2,50,000/- on behalf of M/s. Adlab Film Ltd., was omitted to be recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. However on repayment of the loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- by M/s. Adlab Film Ltd., it was recorded in the name of M/s. Adlab Film Ltd.. These facts could have been verified by the Revenue from both M/s. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment and M/s. Adlab Film Ltd. However the Ld.Revenue Authorities had failed to do so. It is also admitted fact that the books of the assessee were incomplete. In this situation, we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities for adding the amount Addition being the amount advanced to M/s. Status Enterprises as unexplained advances - HELD THAT:- Since neither the Ld.AR nor the assessee submitted any explanation before us on this issue, we do not have any other option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. Accordingly we hereby confirm the addition Addition on account of property purchased at Kasthurba Nagar - CIT(A) has rejected the submission of the assessee with respect to the source of investment arising from the VDIS disclosure and borrowings by stating that it has no correlation with the investment made in the property purchased at Kasthurba Nagar - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rejected the return of income filed by the assessee by stating it to be bogus without further investigation. When the facts being so, we do not find any merit in the observation of the Ld.CIT(A) when he has only investigated the matter partially. There is also no finding by the Revenue as to what investment was made from the voluntary disclosure. The disclosure in the VDS scheme is also not under challenge. In this situation we do not find any merit in the addition made by the Ld.AO which is further sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) on the issue. Hence, we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made
|