2013 (4) TMI 731 - HC - Income Tax

Cash received back on cancellation of the deal - Nature of receipt - addition to assessee income - addition relying on the statement of Vikas Shah made under Section 131 1 (a) - Held that - Sole reliance for such addition on the statement of Vikas Shah was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that there is nothing to indicate; except the statement that the assessee had entered into a deal in respect of the land and for cancellation of such deal an amount of 15.50 lakhs having been paid and there was absolutely no justification for such additions. By extensively examining the statement of Vikas Shah it was noted that the amount received by the assessee represents payment on account of cancellation of the deal and such amount cannot be considered as assessee s income. We are in agreement with the view of CIT A duly concurred by the Tribunal. Except bare version of Vikas Shah there was nothing on the record to substantiate the finding of the Assessing Officer and therefore both the authorities were justified in deleting the addition made in the hands of the assesseerespondent. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of addition made by the Assessing Officer.
3. Justification for deletion of the addition by the CIT [A] and Tribunal.
4. Whether the matter should have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of a search operation conducted on an individual. The proceedings were initiated based on documents seized during the search, leading to the declaration of income by the assessee.

2. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income based on certain amounts found in impounded documents and the statement of another individual. However, the CIT [A] disagreed with this addition, citing lack of corroborative evidence to support it. The Tribunal upheld the CIT [A]'s decision, emphasizing that the reliance solely on the statement of the third party was unjustified.

3. The judgment delves into the justification provided by the CIT [A] and the Tribunal for deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Both authorities found that there was insufficient evidence to support the addition, as the statement of the third party alone was deemed inadequate to substantiate the income addition in the hands of the assessee.

4. The issue of whether the matter should have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further clarification is also raised in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision not to remand the matter was based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the addition, leading to the conclusion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that no question of law arose from the case. The judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence and corroboration in income tax proceedings, emphasizing the need for a strong factual basis to support any additions to an assessee's income.