Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 495 - AT - Income TaxValidity of proceedings u/s.153A - addition as unaccounted profit in respect of land transactions - whether in respect of unabated assessments (no pending proceedings) as on the date of search, the AO could frame the search assessment u/s 153A of the Act by making additions without any incriminating materials found during the course of search? - HELD THAT:- As decided in VATIKA LANDBASE PVT. LTD. [2016 (2) TMI 835 - DELHI HIGH COURT] addition made merely on the basis of unsigned and undated seized document has been held to be unsustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the proposition made by the revenue towards making addition on the basis of the figures mentioned on the said draft deed, thus, cannot be considered to be valid evidence in the absence of any enquiry made by the authorities which ought to have done from the parties involved. Suppressed purchase consideration -There was no material available with the revenue suggesting that there was any payment of cash made by the assessee to the concerned parties as discussed above. It is also pertinent to note that the AO during the assessment proceedings has not verified the veracity of the impugned draft deed from the parties namely Laxmanji Son, Bhagvatiji and Vikramji. As such the land in dispute was purchased by the assessee from the other parties namely Shri Sanjay Jayntilal Patel, Dhirajbhai Bharatkumar Patel and Urmilbhai Gandhibhai Patel. Thus in our considered view there cannot be any addition based on such draft deed in the hands of the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Unexplained investment in jewellery - Assessee has declared sufficient income in her income tax return for the year under consideration. Therefore, the amount of investment in the jewellery, being a meager amount, can be easily explained from the disclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that no separate addition can be made on account of the investment in the impugned jewellery in the given facts of circumstances. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|