Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) Versus Swanpnil Properties (P) Ltd.

2015 (8) TMI 1210 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Unaccounted cash payment - addition on the basis of seized documents - ITAT consequently held that there was no basis for sustaining the addition in respect of alleged cash transactions referred to in the document in the hands of the Assessee - Held that:- Revenue having taken a conscious decision to initiate proceedings against Inmon under Section 147/143 (3) of the Act, and having in those proceedings added the entire cash amount aforementioned in the hands of Inmon, must pursue those proceedi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

v Shakdher, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Madan with Mr. Akash Vajpai, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. A.T. Panda, Adv. ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the order dated 29th January 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') dismissing the Revenue's appeal ITA No. 2063/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2006-07. 2. The background facts are that a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sued, the Assessee filed its income tax return declaring Nil income. The Assessing Officer ('AO') proceeded on the basis of the seized documents and made an addition of ₹ 4,80,97,125 towards unaccounted cash payment. 4. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] the Assessee objected it stating that the said seized document (Annexure A-29 page 66) did not belong to it as no plots of land were purchased by the Assessee from the parties mentioned in those pap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

um of ₹ 30,04,559 shown by the Assessee as 'advance against properties' was paid by it Assessee on behalf of Inmon. However, the CIT (A) rejected the above pleas and upheld the order of the AO. 5. In the impugned order the ITAT has, while overturning the order of the CIT (A), returned the following factual findings: (i) The seized document marked as Annexure A-29 page 66 was not found from the premises of the Assessee; it was not signed by any employee of the Assessee; the name of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d stamp purchases related to Inmon and accounted for by Inmon. Accordingly the enhancement proceedings qua the Assessee were dropped. (v) The mere fact that Mr. Surender Modi had made a declaration of ₹ 20 crores during his statements recorded under Section 132( 4) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income and investment did not relieve the Revenue of the onus of producing supporting evidence, especially in the case of a search, that the transactions mentioned in the documents seized per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version