Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 836 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - search u/s 132(1) - contradictory stand taken by the assessee - amount received on the occasion of marriage of his brother-in-law’s daughter or as commission income - HELD THAT:- the CIT(A) has categorically stated that “it is very clear that the figure is relating to marriage”. Having accepted that the amount represented surplus collections by way of shagun, etc. on the occasion of marriage, we fail to understand how the same can be treated to be in the nature of income of the assessee. The amounts collected by way of gifts on the occasion of marriage do not partake the character of income. Contention of the Revenue that the addition was warranted on account of the inconsistent stand of the assessee claiming the amount to represent the receipts on the occasion of marriage and subsequently claiming it to be his commission income, does not in our view alter or make any difference to our findings above. The reason being that firstly ,before us, the assessee has accepted that the amount represented the collections from marriage, which is corroborated by the contents of the notings also, therefore, his other stand taken subsequently is irrelevant. Also merely because the assessee is inconsistent in his explanation does not ifso facto and on its own alone lead to the conclusion that a particular noting represents the income of the assessee. There has to be some material on record, more importantly, in the absence of any explanation by the assessee, to form the basis of making the addition. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the arguments of the Revenue. Addition u/s 69 made on the basis of certain figures mentioned on Annexure A-4 - house hold expenses - HELD THAT:- The assessee has attributed the notings in document A-4 to be representing household expenses while the Revenue has treated them as investment. We find that the only reason for the Revenue for treating the same as investment is the statement given by the assessee as reproduced above. But as noted above, the statement does not say that the notings in other diaries represents only the investment made by the assessee. The assessee has stated that they also represents household expenses. Therefore, this interpretation of the Revenue is based on incorrect appreciation of the facts; Moreover even if the said figures are said to represent the investment made by the assessee, the statement itself clearly brings out the source of the investment as being made from the savings of ₹ 20 lacs after the marriage of Chitra. This sum of ₹ 20 lacs, we have held in ground No.1 & 2 above to be not in the nature of the income of the assessee. Further the source having stood explained, we see no reason for making the addition of the same on the ground of unexplained investment made by the assessee -Vaddition made on account of notings in document A-4 deserves to be deleted. Addition made on notings made in Annexure A-6 - admission of additional evidence in the form of two affidavits of the daughter of the assessee and of the son-in-law of the assessee stating on oath that the bills found during the course of search and forming part of Annexure A-6 denied - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the assessee has made out a case that he was denied opportunity to file the evidences before the AO.As rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee the Income tax returns of the daughter and son in law of the assessee were part of record of the Department itself and did not constitute additional evidence at all. The affidavits of the two persons admitting on oath that the bills mentioned in the document found belonged to them was in affirmation of the consistent contention of the assessee in this regard and it has been duly demonstrated that the non filing of the same before the AO was for the reason that adequate opportunity was not given since the two did not stay with the assessee and time for procuring the same was required which was not afforded by the AO who passed the order within 15 days of filing of reply by the assessee explaining the contents of the impugned document. We, therefore, admit the same for adjudication and restore the issue back to the AO to verify the evidences, now filed and decide the issue afresh after considering
|