9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Adjudication of CIT(A)'s decision on sustaining addition of Rs. 15,02,776 for unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment pertains to cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91. The main issue in the assessee's appeal was the justification of sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,02,776 for alleged unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act. The assessee, a company operating a cold storage, was found in possession of goods during a search and seizure operation, leading to the addition by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) restricted the addition after considering ownership claims and lack of complete addresses of certain parties. The assessee challenged this decision, contending that the entire addition should be deleted. Upon review, the tribunal observed that the assessee was in the warehousing and cold storage business, with no evidence suggesting a business of dealing in stored goods. The revenue's case rested on the assumption that goods owned by external parties actually belonged to the assessee due to incomplete addresses. However, the tribunal found this reasoning flawed as the goods were recorded in an unaccounted register with external names, indicating ownership by those parties. The tribunal emphasized that the burden to prove ownership lay with the revenue, not the assessee, and the statutory presumption under section 132(4A) was not to be applied mechanically. The tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition solely based on the absence of complete addresses, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Regarding the revenue's appeal, which contested the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), the tribunal dismissed it in light of the decision to delete the entire addition in the assessee's appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence and legal principles in determining unexplained investments under tax laws, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment before making additions based on presumptions or incomplete information.
|
