Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1073 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69C - voluntarily disclosures during post search investigation proceedings which was not disclosed in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) - partner of the assessee firm in his statement made u/s 131(1A) had surrendered an amount on account of any other income/expenditure or investment of the firm and its partners not found recorded in the books of account for the period 01.04.2010 to 14th December, 2016 - AO while making the addition has also observed that the assessee had not disclosed the above amount in his return of income, the retraction letter filed vide affidavit dated 15th October, 2018 was at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and the assessee did not file any evidence to prove the bona fide on its part - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that apart from the statement recorded u/s 131(1A) of the IT Act surrendering an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs for the period from 01.04.2010 to 14th December, 2016 on account of any other income/expenditure or investment in the firm and its partners not found recorded in the books of account no other investments, cash or any other material was found which is unexplained. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) shows that no material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search on 15th December, 2016 showing the existence of any unexplained investment or income or expenditure pertaining to the period from 01.04.2010 to 14th December, 2016. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mantri Share Brokers (P) Ltd.[2018 (7) TMI 200 - SC ORDER] has held that no addition u/s 69B can be made in the hands of an assessee where except statement of the Director of the assessee company offering additional income, there was no other material either in the form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to justify such additional income. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court was dismissed. Similarly, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dilbagh Rai Arora [2019 (3) TMI 1006 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], has held that merely because during search the assessee surrendered an amount in stipulation that details of the same would be given in due course of time, but, no such assets were ever found/identified by the authorities, no addition could be made to assessee’s income. Since, in the instant case, admittedly, other than the statement of the partner recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act offering additional income there was no other material found in the form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document in any other form or asset or unexplained expenditure to justify the said additional income, no addition u/s 69C could have been made by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee.
|