Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 33 - AT - Income TaxAddition of On-money receipts - addition based on the documents impounded during the survey proceedings - plea of the assessee that the addition could not be made as income from the project had been declared under IDS-2016 - CIT(A) categorically held that assessee sold the unit / shops to Mahotsav group about 28% higher that the prevailing jantri rate and there is no concrete evidence against the assessee either on writing or oral which establish that the assessee received alleged on money - HELD THAT:- As decided in CIT Vs Sunita Dandda [2017 (7) TMI 1164 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that where the assessing officer made addition on account of on money on sale of land to a builder group relied on the statement of director and not allowed cross examination of the said director, there being violation of natural justice and the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. The Special Leave Petition of revenue is dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court [2018 (3) TMI 1610 - SC ORDER]. Apex Court in Common cause Vs Union of India [2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT] held that there must be some relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason which is prima facia reliable and that too, supported with some other circumstances pointing out that in particular third person against whom the allegation is made was involved in the matter or has done something during that period. In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Vs CIT [1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] as held by Hon’ble Apex Court that though, the assessing officer is not fettered with technical rules of evidence and pleadings and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence on account of law, but in making assessment he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make assessment without reference to any material at all. In CIT Vs Lavanya Land (P) Ltd [2017 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that when entire decision was based on seized documents and there was no material to conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from seized documents were actually transferred from one side to another, additions u/s 69C were not sustainable. Thus we find that the finding of the ld CIT(A) is based on sound legal reasoning, which we affirm. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed.
|