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 1110 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of income - inclusion /exclusion of income which the assessee has itself included in the return of income filed by the assessee for these two Assessment Years - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has accepted in various statements recorded u/s. 131 that these two amounts are undisclosed income of the assessee and the assessee has also included these two amounts in the return of income filed by the assessee for these two Assessment Years, the assessee can still plead for reduction of these two amounts from the taxable income of the assessee if the assessee can bring cogent evidence on record to establish beyond doubt that these two amounts are not the income of the assessee. In the present case, the assessee is making various arguments in this regard but no cogent evidence could be brought on record by assessee to establish beyond doubt that these two amounts are not income of the assessee in these two years. Addition based on entries of seized cash book - HELD THAT:- Explanation of the assessee should not be rejected outrightly and should be examined on merit and if no merit is found therein then only it can be rejected. AO has also stated that assessee has failed to establish that how the payment made to Saikrupa Minerals is related with the amounts paid in cash to Ashwathnarayan Singh & Co. AO also says that ledger account of Saikrupa Minerals does not indicate payment of ₹ 52.23 Lakhs on a single day. In the absence of any narration against this amount of ₹ 52.23 Lakhs in the seized material, this is only an assumption of the AO that this is on account of cash payment but such assumption is not supported by the entry in the seized material. As per the ledger copy of Saikrupa Minerals appearing on page no. 69 of paper book, it is seen that amount of ₹ 57,41,404/- is credited to the account of this party in respect of Transportation Hire Charges for 7,794.340 MT @ ₹ 455/- per MT + 4,739.760 MT @ ₹ 465/- per MT. The total quantity comes to 12,534.100. This explanation of the assessee is acceptable particularly when there is no such narration in the seized material that this amount of ₹ 52.23 Lakhs noted on page no. 7 of the seized cash book is on account of cash payment to any party. Explanation of the assessee in relation to entries on page 41 of the seized material as find the amount of ₹ 105,63,900/- against date 29.03.2010 with narration “Payment” was struck off and therefore, we enclose the photo copy of this page 41 of the seized material as available on page 57 of the paper book. In our opinion, this amount cannot be considered for addition in view of these facts that the amount in question is struck off in the seized material itself and the reasons about such striking off are explained by the assessee being on account payment by cheque of ₹ 1 Crore and no further enquiry is made by the department whether DDIT (Investigation) or the AO in spite of retraction by the assessee as early as on 29.03.2011 i.e. before expiry of 15 days from the date of the first statement u/s 131 on 15.03.2011 in which declaration was made after including these two amounts. In view of this, we delete this addition also.
|