TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 (5) TMI 543 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein, the view taken is that the declaration made by another party before the Settlement Commission is not binding upon the assessee, therefore, no additions can be made in absence of any independent material. Question of law as proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 838 of 2019 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 840 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2020 - MR. J.B. PARDIWALA AND MR. BHARGAV D. KARIA JJ. Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT (PER : MR.J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since the question of law as proposed by the Revenue in both the captioned tax ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Commission. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the case of the assessee herein was reopened and was completed by passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated certain amount as unexplained and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4.2 The assessee herein being dissatisfied with the addition made by the Assessing Officer preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition. 4.3 The Revenue being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A) went in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase of the land situated at Jagatpur the cash of ₹ 4,01,00,001/is stated as unexplained income and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. 7. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Assessing Officer did not find favour with the CIT(A) for the following reasons as recorded in the order passed by the CIT(A). (i) The documents on the basis of which additions have been made were not found at the premises of the appellant but at the premises of third party Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala. (ii) The documents found during the course of search at the premises of Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciple in all the said decisions is that the assessee need not to be asked to explain the entries or notings in the books of a third party. In the absence of any other independent material to corroborate the statement of Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala made before the Settlement Commission, it would not be prudent to take the view that there was a transaction between the assessee and Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala in cash with regard to the purchase of certain parcels of land. 11. It appears that the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vineeta Gupta (2014) 46 taxman.com 439 (Delhi), wherein, the view taken is that the declaration made by another party before the Settlement Commission is not binding upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
