Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 14 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - incriminating material found during the course of search or not? - HELD THAT:- Revenue could not controvert the fact that the additions as made by the Assessing Officer are not on the basis of material gathered during the course of search. Admittedly, the additions are not linked with incriminating material found during the course of search. Moreover, it is not disputed that the assessment was not abated in the year under consideration, the assessment had been completed. As relying on KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we hereby quash the impugned assessment order being not in the conformity with law laid - Decided in favour of assessee. Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- No effort was made to ascertain the veracity of the confirmation made by the assessee. there is no evidence suggesting that the amount of ₹ 20 Lakhs from M/s. ATS infrastructure Ltd. was loan on advance to the assessee. In the absence of evidences, we are not inclined to affirm the view of Ld.CIT(A) when undisputedly during the original appellate proceedings. CIT(A had categorically stated that the impugned amount represents repayment of pre-existing liability. Ld.CIT(A) has not brought any material to take a contrary view. Even during the appellate proceedings, Ld.CIT(A) has recorded the factum of confirmation furnished by the assessee. Hence, we hereby delete the addition. Ground raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. Addition on account of benefit derived on purchases of flat for lower consideration - Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting market price at ₹ 3.5 crore in utter disregard to the fact that the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority is much lower than the value as disclosed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Mr. Geetambar Anand, Co-director of the company are identical and in the case of Mr. Geetambar Anand, Co-director of the company, the addition has been deleted [2017 (6) TMI 1347 - ITAT DELHI] CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition in the case of the assessee when in the similarly situated Co-director, addition was deleted. Moreover, in the original proceedings, Ld.CIT(A), Meerut considered the facts in depth and relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills [1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] observed that the additionwas liable to be deleted. He had categorically given a finding that the assessee had filed an Agreement for allotment dated 02.09.2006 between M/s ATS Infrastructure Ltd. and Mr. Prabodh Nath Aggarwal for consideration of ₹ 1.5 crore. It was further observed that the Assessing Officer neither conducted any inquiry from Mr. Prabodh Nath Aggarwal nor the Assessing Officer tried to find out the market price of K-Villa at the time of allotment in Financial Year 2006-07 - As considering these facts for the purpose of stamp duty, the value of K-Villa was only ₹ 81,04,355/- and the HDFC Bank also granted a loan of ₹ 1.35 crore against the market price of ₹ 1.5 crore. Therefore, he held that market price of ₹ 1.5 crore at the time of allotment was fair and reasonable. It is further observed that Ld.CIT(A) has not brought any new material to rebut the finding of Ld.CIT(A) in the original proceedings, therefore, the addition cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|