Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 174 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained share capital - assessment u/s 153C - share capital received from Y2K Systems International Ltd. (Y2K SIL), holding company - HELD THAT:- As during the course of arguments, learned DR did not dispute that the issues have already been considered in detail in the aforesaid decision considering the other related decisions in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda [2013 (3) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Russian Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd [2017 (5) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . It is also a fact that during the course of search, no material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized. It is a routine addition on which assessee has already declared share capital while filing the return of income. The assessee has produced sufficient documentary evidence as are referred to above which completely prove the case of the assessee that assessee proved the identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. During the course of hearing, learned DR was not able to point out any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Considering the issue in its entirety in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of River Valley Meadows & Township Pvt.Ltd. [2019 (4) TMI 198 - ITAT DELHI] we find that the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal in this case. In the absence of any infirmity pointed out in the order of the learned CIT(A), we dismiss the department’s appeal on this ground. Addition on account of pre-operative expenses - expenses claimed as deduction u/s 35D - HELD THAT:- Assessee has incurred this expenditure before commencement of business which was in the nature of travelling, telephone and printing expenses etc. These were revenue in nature. Therefore, learned CIT(A) rightly amortized these expenses under Section 35D. Further, no document was seized during the course of search with reference to this addition. Since assessment in this year was originally completed u/s 143(3), therefore, no addition can be made as per law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . This ground is accordingly dismissed. Addition on account of unaccounted credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. It is also clear that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found so as to make this addition. In this case, originally, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and no seized material has been referred to so as to make this addition against the assessee. In this case, protective addition was made in the hands of Shri Suresh Nanda of the same amount. Since in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda, he was held to be ‘non-resident’, therefore, no addition can be made in his hands. On the basis of documentary evidences on record and considering various litigation in the case of group in which similar additions have been deleted, therefore, learned CIT(A), on proper appreciating of facts and material on record, correctly deleted the addition. This ground is accordingly dismissed. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- Issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee dated 25th February, 2013 [2013 (3) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in which it was held that the assessee is a ‘non-resident’. The order of the Tribunal is thus affirmed and hence, no addition can be made. Learned DR also did not dispute the above fact. In this view of the matter, it is clear that since similar additions have been deleted in the case of M/s C 1 India Pvt.Ltd. in assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04 (supra), in which substantive addition is made, therefore, no protective addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. Further, assessee is held to be non-resident, therefore, no income had accrued or received by the assessee in India and, as such, no addition can be made in hands of the assessee. The issue is covered by the aforesaid decision in the case of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground of the Revenue’s appeal. Accrual of income outside India - non resident - Disallowance on account of commission earned on the defense deal related to documents found from M.V. Rao - HELD THAT:- In the case of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 [2014 (11) TMI 14 - ITAT DELHI] in which it was held that the addition of commission made on the basis of documents seized from the premises of Dr. M.V. Rao and Shri Mohan Jagthap is completely baseless. The order is reproduced in the impugned order. CIT(A) noted that since the assessee has been held to be non-resident, therefore, even if the same represents unaccounted income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, it cannot be brought to tax as income in his hands unless it is proved that the income accrued to him in India.
|