9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 304 - AT - Income TaxSearch & Seizure - Addition made u/s 69B of the Act - Revenue contended from seized documents that amount mentioned is nothing but the cost price paid by assessee to the seller of this land Held that - The decision in The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Versus M/s. Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (9) TMI 252 - ITAT, JAIPUR followed - CIT (A) has taken into consideration the aspect that firstly the AO s view about the cost of land - Three show cause notices were given to the assessee for explaining that why the cost of the land be not taken - All the three times, the explanation was filed and the AO was satisfied with the explanation - as per certain seized documents, the AO took this value as cost of investment in the property. Neither the AO could co-relate the figures mentioned as per books of account - Therefore, there cannot be a presumption that figure mentioned is figure of cost of land purchased by assessee - There must be some corroborative evidence to hold that this figure is related to cost of the land purchased by the assessee - Neither the findings could be controverted nor any other material were brought on record which can be said that findings of CIT (A) are not correct thus, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) deleting addition made u/s 69B of the Act - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of undisclosed investment in the purchase of land. 2. Validity of the addition based on seized documents and the conclusions drawn by the A.O. 3. Explanation of the contents of the seized documents by the assessee and its subsequent affidavit. 4. Corroboration of the assessee's explanation with other seized documents. 5. Right to amend, alter, or add grounds of appeal. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Undisclosed Investment: The department's grievance pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,31,02,000/- made by the A.O. based on a document (page No. 37 of Annexure-A-57) seized during a search. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that this issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in the case of M/s Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., where a similar addition based on the same document was deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) had followed this precedent in deleting the addition. 2. Validity of Addition Based on Seized Documents: The A.O. had made the addition based on the contents of page No. 37 of Annexure-A-57, supported by other seized documents (page No. 142 of Annexure-A-24 and page No. 77 of Annexure-A-40). The Ld. CIT(A) found that the A.O. failed to provide positive evidence that the figures mentioned in the seized documents represented the actual cost of the land. The ITAT upheld this view, noting that the A.O. could not correlate the figures in the seized documents with the assessee's books of account. 3. Explanation by the Assessee: The assessee had initially explained the contents of the seized document under section 131(1) of the IT Act, which was later admitted to be incorrect in an affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the revised explanation that the figures represented the market value of the land for joint venture purposes, not the cost. The ITAT found this explanation plausible and noted that the A.O. had not provided any material evidence to contradict it. 4. Corroboration with Other Seized Documents: The Ld. CIT(A) examined other seized documents and found that they supported the assessee's explanation. For instance, documents related to email correspondence and projections for joint ventures indicated that the figures were related to market value estimates rather than actual costs. The ITAT agreed with this assessment, noting that the A.O. had not successfully proven that the figures represented undisclosed investments. 5. Right to Amend Grounds of Appeal: The department reserved the right to amend, alter, or add to the grounds of appeal. However, no new grounds were introduced during the proceedings. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the department's appeals, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The ITAT found that the A.O. had not provided sufficient evidence to support the additions and accepted the assessee's explanation of the seized documents. The findings in the case of M/s Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. were applied mutatis mutandis to the current case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. (Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2014).
|
