TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the assessee in this regard have proceeded to make and confirm addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified and reasonable and a right approach of tax officers. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) has no legs to stand on the sound principles of tax jurisprudence. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the same. Grounds No.2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed. Addition on Lumpsum basis representing unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign travel - whether assessee has successfully demonstrated the source of such expenditure? - HELD THAT:- Onus lie on the shoulders of the person or entity who made the foreign visit. In the present case, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee explained that the expenses incurred towards his foreign travel to Dubai was incurred by his friend, but, no evidence, confirmation or documentary evidence was submitted before the authorities below to substantiate that the expenditure was incurred by the friend of the assessee. Even during the first appellate proceedings, the name of the friend was stated as Shri Munish Uppal but no supporting evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tax u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The ld. Counsel also submitted that the mere fact that the notice u/s 131 of the Act was not complied with by Shri Kartar Singh could not be a valid reason to sustain the addition and reject the explanation of the assessee at the threshold without appreciating the same in the right perspective. The ld. Counsel strongly contended that the addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is untenable having regard to the fact that when search summon was received by late by Shri Kartar Singh and, therefore, he was unable to appear during the remand proceedings on the date fixed for his appearance cannot empower the AO and CIT(A) to make addition in the hands of the assessee. The ld. Counsel submitted that Shri Kartar Singh submitted that in the rejoinder submissions filed before the CIT(A), the assessee filed the copy o confirmation of Shri Kartar Singh along with copy of his driving licence and affidavit placed at assessee s paper book pages 26-30. The ld. Counsel submitted that in the affidavit dated 08.11.2019, Shri Kartar Singh categorically stated that he made payment of Rs.8,25,000/- on 12.05.2009 towards purchase of assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and surmises and the ld.CIT(A) has also gone far beyond to analyse the value of car and consideration stated by the assessee as he cannot step into the shoes of the seller and purchaser of assets/car, written down value of which had the opening was Rs.7,07,285/- and sale consideration of second-hand car depends on the negotiation between seller and buyer and physical condition of car and not on the basis of written down value in the opening of the year. Therefore, the Revenue authorities having admitted that the assessee was owning a car, but, doubted the transaction on flimsy ground which is not a sustainable approach. 5. Replying to the above, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the affidavit of Shri Kartar Singh does not establish the genuineness of the transaction, capability and credit worthiness of Shri Kartar Singh to give Rs.8,25,000/- in cash to the assessee. Therefore, the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) was right in disbelieving the transaction and denying to accept the source of impugned cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee on the strength of such afterthought imaginary transaction of sale and return of car. 6. On careful consideration of rival submissions, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the aforementioned and other evidence submitted by the assessee in this regard have proceeded to make and confirm addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified and reasonable and a right approach of tax officers. Therefore, I am compelled to hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) has no legs to stand on the sound principles of tax jurisprudence. Therefore, I direct the AO to delete the same. Grounds No.2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.3 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, during the hearing before me, submitted that the addition of Rs.50,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on lumpsum basis representing unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign travel by the assessee is not sustainable as the assessee has successfully demonstrated the source of such expenditure. Therefore, the same may kindly be deleted. 8. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the assessment as well as the first appellate order and submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee visited Dubai, but, no expenses were shown by the assessee in the ITR as well as during assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
