Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1142 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - addition based on incriminating material found and seized during the course of search - presumption of correctness under Section 292C - whether the seized document herein satisfies the foregoing presumption or the same stands rebutted? - HELD THAT:- We note from the case file that all the corresponding entries have been made on a pad of the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. We wish to observe here that this company has nothing to do with any sale and purchase of a moveable or immoveable property concerning the assessee at all. The very factual position continues even in the entries forming part of seized documents wherein all what is given is total cost of Rs.725.00 lakhs including cheque of Rs.400 lakhs and cash component of Rs.325 lakhs; respectively. There is not even a single mention of any property or the date of any cheque payment made from the assessees’. All these clinching facts lead us to the conclusion in assessee’s favour and against the department that the statutory presumption of correctness under Section 229C itself stands rebutted since the learned Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition based on a “dumb” document which does not reveal any actual payment at all with dates as well as the assets details involving the taxpayer. We accordingly find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition. The Revenue’s instant substantive grounds fails therefore. Unexplained bank deposit - HELD THAT:- As we note from a perusal of the case file that this tribunal’s coordinate bench decision in Revenue’s identical appeal [2022 (3) TMI 1377 - ITAT PUNE] wherein restored the very issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the sanctity and correctness of the Bank A/c belonging to the assessee and examine whether the funds deposits in the bank account of the HDFC Bank, whether they were from this account or not and re-adjudicate this issue in totality as per law. Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) - addition only qua the peak amount - Whether addition should be restricted to the peak amount of the loans given during the year? - HELD THAT:- Deeming fiction of dividend under Section 2(22)(e) comes to play regarding each and every sum received by the concerned assessee as per the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. P.K. Badiani [1970 (2) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Coupled with this the CIT(A) has also taken note of decision in Tarulata Shyam [1977 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] that even a repayment does not alter the status of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We thus hold in this factual position that the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition of Section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend in assessee’s hands. The foregoing twin decisions coming from the learned coordinate bench also do not rescue the assessee since the facts therein indicated both deemed dividends as well as routine trading transactions wherein it was held that the impugned addition ought to be restricted qua the former component only which is not the case before us. We accordingly reject the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground
|