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 893 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction u/s 153C - satisfaction note based on bank balance certificate found in search is a incriminating evidence - bank account was already disclosed in return - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the revenue that such bank account is not disclosed by the assessee to the income tax department. Is the contention of the revenue is upheld, then it would imply that any document found during the course of search on other person belonging to the 3rd person, whether it contains any details of unaccounted income of 3rd person or not, the concluded assessment of the 3rd person will be disturbed and any addition can be made in the hands of 3rd person even if, in the seized document no reference of unaccounted income is found. Thus, such a view, will render the distinction between concluded assessment and abetted assessment meaningless. Thus, we cannot uphold the view of the revenue. We do not have any hesitation in holding that the impugned bank certificate is not an incriminating document based on which the concluded assessment in the case of the assessee can be disturbed. We hold that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in absence of any incriminating evidence leading to any unaccounted income unearthed during the course of search. Accordingly, ground number 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Addition u/s 68 - transfer of equity share by way of gift - gifted share still appearing in balance sheet of donor - HELD THAT:- Merely because the affidavit is not on the non-judicial stamp paper, the learned CIT – A has rejected the affidavit of the donor. Even for a minute, it is believed that the affidavit of the donor is not proper, the content of the affidavit needs to be looked into in view of the overwhelming evidence produced by the assessee, which supports the affidavit. Rejecting an evidence on technical grounds by the learned CIT(A) to uphold the addition in the hands of the assessee cannot be approved. With respect to the payment of sale transfer stamps paid by the appellant of INR 5 7500/– on the share transfer forms, the learned CIT(A) found that no such withdrawal/drawings are found in the books of the donor. That may be the case of any addition if at all in the hands of the donor and not in the hands of the Donee. With respect to the dematerialization of the shares, CIT(A) unnecessarily referred to the correspondence of dematerialization, wherein the company itself who shares are transferred is confirming the date of the transfer producing the share transfer deed as well as confirming the same by way of a separate letter. Thus merely because the dematerialization request made by the assessee on 16/12/2007 it cannot be said that the share transfer did not happen on 23/1/2006 when the donee and the donor both confirmed the same along with the certificate of the company whose shares are transferred. It is also not the case of the revenue about the fact that donor was not having the shares. Thus, the lower authorities have wrongly made the addition of ₹ 28261091/– in the hands of the assessee u/s 68.
|