Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 247 - AT - Income TaxAddition based on loose sheets found during the search - on money payment - HELD THAT:- It is settled issue that loose sheets does not convey any meaning without having corroborative evidence. In the instant case, though certain notings were made with regard to cash payment, however, no details were mentioned with regard to plot number, payer, payee and the purpose of payment etc. The assessee has denied having made any payment over and above the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed. Unless there is tangible evidence, merely on the basis of loose sheet which does not have any details do not convey any meaning for making the addition. It is settled issue that the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed needs to be adopted for the purpose of payments made to the vendor as decided in case of Paramjit Singh Vs. ITO [1996 (3) TMI 120 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Thus we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s. 69A for on money payment - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO relied on the loose sheet for assuming the payment of cash consideration over and above the registered amount as per the registered sale deed, however, there was no corroborative evidence or material found during the course of search. The said loose sheet did not give any details with regard to actual payment, the name of purchaser and the vendor. The assessee denied having made the payment over and above the registered sale deed. He explained the notings on loose sheet are rough notings but not the actual payments. No other corroborative evidence was found by the AO to assert that the payment was made over above the consideration recorded on sale deeds. The legal validity of notings on a loose sheet without having the corroborative evidence has come up before the coordinate bench of ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Smt. Harmohinder Kaur [2020 (1) TMI 1459 - ITAT AMRITSAR] as held that without the corroborative evidence, to prove the authenticity of diary seized during the course of search, the AO could not make addition in assessee's income on the basis of notings in the diary. Thus we, hold that in the absence of corroborative evidence to support the payment of on money merely on the basis of some notings on loose papers, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable. Addition u/s. 69C - HELD THAT:- In the case of the assessee no other evidence was found indicating incurring of expenditure estimated by the AO. The assessee has explained the contents of the diary as cash inflow and out flow of M/s. Phozo Digital Press (P) Ltd. which was not controverted by the AO with the tangible evidence. In fact, the AO has acknowledged in assessment order that the cash inflows are related to the company. Therefore, if the contents of the diary and the explanation of the assessee considered together, no addition is warranted in this case. Thus we hold that there is no case for making the addition u/s. 69C on the basis of the notings made in scribbling pad in the hands of the assessees and hence, we, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the revenue. Addition u/s. 69A r.w.s.115BBE - cash found was from the undisclosed sources - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee has admitted the additional income for the A.Y. 2017-18 and the assessee stated that the cash found during the course of search was belonged to the company M/s. Phozo Digital Pvt. Ltd. and it was the practice to keep cash with the directors of the company in their residences. Since, search u/s. 132 was conducted in the residence and the business premises and no evidence was found evidencing application of additional income admitted by the assessee, either in the hands of the company or in the hands of the directors, we do not find any reason to reject the telescopic benefit requested by the assessee. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Addition of unexplained jewellery u/s. 69C - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the case it is revealed that the assessee explained the source of jewellery as streedhan of two married family members and unmarried female members as well as gifts received on various occasions. It is also customary to receive gifts by female members on various occasions and functions related to the female child, more so in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Thus, the source of jewelry to the extent of minimum threshold as per Board Circular No. 1916 stands explained by the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition placing reliance on Board circular and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Suresh Kumar Jain [2019 (12) TMI 1186 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] Addition on account of gold bars - Assessee explained during the course of search that gold bars were related to the company, kept in assessee's house. The AO made the addition for want of evidence in the form of entries in the books of accounts. Since the gold bars were purchased from the undisclosed income declared in the hands of the company, naturally no evidence would be available, since the same was acquired out of unexplained sources. Therefore expecting the evidence for the application of undisclosed income is unreasonable and ambitious. The assessee has requested for telescopic benefit from the additional income declared in the hands of the company in earlier assessment years and the same is justified. Therefore, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the telescopic benefit and no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
|