Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 917 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained money u/s 69A - Unexplained investment u/s 69 - seized document found during search from third party relied upon - credit of said amount not disclosed by the assessee in its books of accounts - burden of proving receipt of cash -presumption u/s. 292C - HELD THAT:- Presumption u/s 292C (1)(i) cannot be drawn against the assessee on the basis of the document found in the possession of third party i.e. Shri Naresh Gupta who was a deed writer in the present case. Addition made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money u/s . 69A of the Act, which applies to a situation when assessee is found to be the owner any money bullion etc. not recorded in the books of accounts of assessee. As per facts gathered and alleged by the Assessing Officer we note that the main contention of the Assessing Officer based on unsigned ATS is that the credit of cash payment was not found to be recorded in the books of accounts of assessee which attracts the provision of section 69 of the Act. As first and foremost condition for invoking sec. 69 of the Act is that the Assessing Officer must come to a conclusion that an Assessee had, in fact, made an investment. Once an AO finds that an investment has been made, he has to examine the Assessee's explanation as to the source of that investment. It is only in cases where the Assessee is unable to explain the source of the investment made that provisions of Section 69 of the Act can be applied to tax the value of the investment made. CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition can be made and sustained only on the basis of unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sale found from the premises of third party i.e. deed writer without any other collaborative evidence supporting the factum of receipt of cash by the assessee under the alleged document. We are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and thus we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds of revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed.
|