9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1175 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s. 69B and unaccounted interest addition - entries found in the seized diary of the Shri Shreeram Soni - Held that - No addition is called for in the hands of the assessee as it is an admitted fact that neither Shri Shreeram H. Soni has admitted to have accepted any money from the present assessee nor any document or evidence whatsoever was found from the residence of Shri Shreeram H. Soni belonging to the assessee. We find during the course of assessment proceedings ,the assessee had categorically stated before the AO that he does not know Shri Shreeram H. Soni. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the above submission of the assessee is false or untrue. The statement of the assessee was never recorded by the AO nor the AO has granted any opportunity or directed the assessee to cross-examine Shri Shreeram H. Soni. When the assessee resides at Mahabaleshwar and Shri Shreeram H. Soni resides at Pune therefore, in absence of any corroborative evidence whatsoever found from the residence of Shri Shreeram H. Soni belonging to the assessee, the statement of the assessee before the AO that he does not know Shri Shreeram H. Soni cannot be ignored and addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69B. 3. Addition of Rs. 75,000 as unaccounted interest. 4. Similar additions for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee's counsel did not press this ground, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as 'not pressed'. 2. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as Unexplained Investment under Section 69B: The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated action under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148 after obtaining approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT). The AO based the addition on documents seized during a search and seizure operation at the premises of Shri Shreeram H. Soni, which allegedly showed that the assessee had invested Rs. 5,00,000 in unaccounted cash in the money lending business. The assessee denied any transactions with Shri Shreeram H. Soni and provided a list of other persons to whom he had given advances. The AO, however, did not accept the assessee's contention and made the addition based on entries in the seized documents. 3. Addition of Rs. 75,000 as Unaccounted Interest: Alongside the unexplained investment, the AO also added Rs. 75,000 as unaccounted interest income. The assessee contested this addition, stating he did not know Shri Shreeram H. Soni and had not earned any interest from him. The AO, relying on the seized documents, made the addition for the interest income. 4. Similar Additions for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03: For Assessment Year (AY) 2001-02, the AO made an addition of Rs. 15,00,000 under Section 69B and Rs. 1,00,000 as interest. For AY 2002-03, the AO added Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 69B and Rs. 1,23,750 as interest. The additions were based on entries in the seized documents, which the AO interpreted as investments and interest income not disclosed by the assessee. CIT(A) Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's additions, noting that the name "PALD TJ." in the seized documents likely referred to the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the onus was on the assessee to disprove the apparent records, which the assessee failed to do. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanations and upheld the additions. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal considered the rival arguments and reviewed the evidence. It noted that during the search at Shri Shreeram H. Soni's premises, no corroborative evidence was found linking the assessee to the transactions. The Tribunal also observed that Shri Shreeram H. Soni did not identify the assessee as an investor, and the assessee consistently denied knowing Shri Shreeram H. Soni. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of direct evidence and the failure to provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Shreeram H. Soni. The Tribunal referred to similar cases where additions based on entries in Shri Shreeram H. Soni's diary were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence. Following the precedent set in those cases, the Tribunal found no justification for the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the deletion of the additions made under Section 69B and for unaccounted interest for the respective assessment years. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of corroborative evidence and the consistent denial by the assessee of any transactions with Shri Shreeram H. Soni. Result: All three appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 30-04-2015.
|
