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 568 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We note that during the assessment proceedings, the CIT(A), held that whatever the amount was deposited in the assessee's account and transmitted to the company was nothing but sale proceeds of land of the company. The assessee has acted just like as an agent of The Surat Dist. Co-op. Spinning Mills Ltd. As such, an amount so deposited in assessee's acount does not become the income of the assessee's undisclosed income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted full details of the source of deposits made. Hence, the question of adding the same in the assessee's hand does not make any sense. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the addition correctly. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We note that assessee has not incurred the expenditure, although it is mentioned in various clauses of the development agreement. The AO has not brought any evidence on record which can demonstrate that assessee has incurred expenses for development work. There was no evidence with the AO to prove or even indicate that such amount was spent by assessee on the development of land in concern which was sold. AO made addition purely on surmises and conjecture. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. In the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. [1959 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity on the order of Ld.CIT(A), hence, we approve the order of Ld.CIT(A). Estimation of fees income - assessee was asked to show cause as to why 2% of total amount paid during the year to mill should not be considered as his income for acting as underwriter on the behalf of mill - HELD THAT:- As submitted that assessee was granted the right to sell the land on behalf of the mill, after developing it and he would get a commission at the rate of 5% of amount in excesses of sell price of ₹ 3951 per sq. mts. However, the assessee was facing difficulty to find out the customers for the price, more than ₹ 3951 per sq. mts. AO did not agree with the plea of the assessee because no prudent businessmen would carry out such responsible task without earning single rupee vis-à-vis huge risk on his head. Assessee did not receive any amount as commission. There was no evidence with the AO either in cheque or cash or received but not shown in the books of account. AO made addition based on surmise and conjecture and such additions are not tenable in law, therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by AO. Hence, no interference is required in the order of CIT(A), thus we dismiss Revenue’s appeal.
|