9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,85,738/-. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in disregarding the evidences / confirmation letters / filed by the appellant during the course of Assessment Proceedings / Appellate Proceedings. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add or alter any of the grounds mentioned above." 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' was framed vide order dated 31.12.2007. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment made disallowance of Rs. 32,32,404/- treating the same as undisclosed income. 3. The assessee aggrieved by this assessment order preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal thereby the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 23,85,738/- out of addition of Rs. 32,32,404/-. 4. The only effective ground is against confirmation of addition of Rs. 23,85,738/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below were not justified in making addition and confirming the same. Ld. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreements, make it amply clear that the said agreementswere to remain effective during the F.Y 2004-05 also. The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to prove that the said agreements had been cancelled. When the only piece of evidence available in a particular case is the statement of the assessee, any judicial authority can accept the same and order assessment on such sole evidence. But when, even according to the assessee, there is other documentary evidence of corroborative value and the same is within the reach of the assessee, the judicial body cannot act on the interested testimony of the assessee alone. The law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the court, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it (CIT v KrishnaveniAmmal, (1986) 158 ITR 826, 829, 830 (Mad)]. 5.6. The income as computed based on the agreements have accrued to the assessee during the F.Y 2004-05 irrespective of the fact that she has not received the same as claimed by her. She was supposed to declare the same in her return of income on accrual basis. However, the assessee has not declared such income. The income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made about the cancellation of any of the above agreements. The Assessing Officer was therefore justified in bringing to tax Rs. 8,64,000/- and Rs. 3,19,368/- received from the two agreements valid for the entire period. With regard to agreement dated 31.05.20.03 wherein the appellant was to receive Rs. 66,387/-per month, since the agreement validity expired on 31.01.2005 the Assessing Officer should have brought to tax Rs. 6,63,870/-(66387X10). The addition to this extent is confirmed while the balance being Rs. 1,32,774/- is deleted. With regard to receipt from UTI Bank Ltd., the UTI Bank has categorically stated that they have not paid the appellant any sum beyond the period of October, 2003. No agreement had been entered into with the UTI Bank furthersince there is no evidence of rent received either as per anyagreement or any other source there was no justification for the Assessing Officer to have made the addition of Rs. 6,47,142/-. The addition is directed to be deleted. 7. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 58,500/- said to have been received from Prabhat Automation as rent from property based at Sakinaka. My learned predecessor has held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed at page 117 to 120, one of the sundry creditor is Mr. George Thomas whose signature matches with the certificate on page 9 of the paper book. Under these facts, it can be inferred that the finding of the authorites is ill founded and cannot be sustained. As no contrary material has been placed by the Revenue and gathered any material by making enquiry in this respect, we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the amount of Rs. 19,71,435/- VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd.In respect of Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., Assessing Officer has made addition amounting to Rs. 4,80,000/- and confirmed by ld. CIT(A). Assessing Officer had made addition on the basis that the contract existed up to 19.10.2005. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the cancellation of agreement between M/s. Kuoni travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. at paper book page 10. The cancellation of agreement dated 1st April, 2004 is made. As per this cancellation, agreement dated 31.01.2003 was terminated with immediate effect meaning thereby there was no contract existing between the parties post 1st April 2004. As per this cancellation, agreement amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- was to be refunded. The contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
