TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R filed by the CBI and as the CBI itself had not found any material to pursue the matter regarding the property transaction in USA against the appellant in the charge sheet, the addition of ₹ 2,86,86,270/- is sustainable as the addition was not made on the basis of any evidence. Even on the basis of the FIR the addition can be made at best on the son in law only, who is a permanent resident of USA and assessed to tax in USA, and not on the appellant. Moreover, the appellant’s AR during the appellate proceedings had informed that the same property in USA was added in the hands of Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, the actual purchaser of the property in USA by DCIT Central Circle-11 in his order u/s 153A passed on 27.03.2009. Since the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent as Benami and brought to tax under Section 69. 4. The CIT(A) reversed the AO s findings, holding as follows:- 7. The above FIR mentions that the contractor Sh. Vijay Kumar Kataria had executed power of attorney in favour of appellants son-in-law Shri. Mohit Mehra on 23.05.2005 and Sh. Mohit Mehra signed various documents to obtain bank loan of $3,29,500 on 23.05.2005. The only link between the appellant and the property is the above power of attorney in favour of the appellant s son in law and the documents signed by the son in law to obtain the bank loan. This evidence mentioned in the FIR is not adequate to conclude that the appellant have property in USA valued at ₹ 2,86,86,270/- as done in the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and on the actual purchaser of property. Therefore, I am of the view that the addition of ₹ 2,86,86,270/- made by the AO as the value of property in USA is not sustainable as the addition is not based on any evidence that the appellant was the owner of the above property. It is mentioned clearly even in the FIR that the property was purchased by Sh. Vijay Kumar Kataria only and therefore it cannot become the income for the appellant on the premise that the appellant s son in law has power of attorney over the above property for some period of time. Therefore, ground no.2 is allowed and the addition of ₹ 2,86,86,270/- is deleted. 5. The ITAT affirmed the findings after noticing that the assessee had been acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
