Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1012 - ITAT DELHIDeletion of addition of undisclosed income – Incriminating documents found in search – Validity of admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A – Held that:- In the course of search proceeding, particulars of transaction between the searched person and the proprietary concerns of the assessee were recorded - M/s Gian Chand Ramji Dass Group (the search person) were recording certain portion of their sales outside the books of account and many of these sales were made to two proprietary concerns of the assessee - assessee was asked to explain whether the purchases from M/s Gian Chand Ramji Dass Group, were duly accounted or not - There was lack of cooperation on the part of the assessee and did not provide the necessary material called for by the AO - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for the reason that no incriminating documents against the assessee were found during course of search. M/s Gian Chand Ramji Dass Group has sold goods outside its book of account to the proprietary concerns of the assessee The addition of ₹ 6,81,067/- would not have been warranted, had assessee cooperated and produced the details called for in the course of assessment proceeding - The assessee ought to have furnished necessary material to show that the purchases from M/s Gian Chand Ramji Dass Group were duly reflected in the regular book account maintained by the proprietary concerns - CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition – thus, the matter is remitted back to AO for fresh consideration. The AO merely added the peak credit without giving any reasoning for treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee - when the Bank accounts are reflected in the normal course of assessee’s business, there is no reason that the peak credit in the two bank accounts should be added as undisclosed income - the CIT(A)’s order deleted the addition of ₹ 10,83,460/- is upheld – Decided partly in favour of revenue.
|