Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (6) TMI 1550 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources.
2. Lack of positive and cogent evidence for the addition.
3. Non-consideration of evidence produced by the appellant.
4. Legality and arbitrariness of the appellate order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources:
The assessee appealed against the addition of ?25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO based this addition on an excel sheet found during a search at the AEZ group, which indicated that the assessee had made a cash payment of ?25,20,884/- for the purchase of property. The assessee denied making any such payment and argued that no incriminating document was found during the search at their premises.

2. Lack of positive and cogent evidence for the addition:
The assessee contended that the addition was made without any positive and cogent evidence. The AO relied on the excel sheet found at the AEZ group’s premises and the confession of another individual, Sh. I.E. Soomar, who admitted to making cash investments. However, the assessee argued that this evidence was not sufficient to justify the addition, as no direct evidence of cash payment by the assessee was found.

3. Non-consideration of evidence produced by the appellant:
The assessee argued that the AO did not consider the evidence they produced, which clearly established that no cash payment was made. The AO dismissed the assessee’s denial of the cash payment without providing a satisfactory explanation or considering the evidence provided by the assessee.

4. Legality and arbitrariness of the appellate order:
The assessee claimed that the appellate order was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of contemporary jurisprudence principles. The CIT(A) upheld the addition without properly evaluating the facts and evidence presented by the assessee.

Tribunal’s Decision:
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was adjudicated in the case of Subhash Khattar, where the addition was made based on the same excel sheet and confession of Sh. I.E. Soomar. In that case, the Tribunal held that no addition under section 153A could be made in the absence of incriminating documents found during the search. The Tribunal emphasized that merely because a third party admitted to cash payments, it did not bind other independent assessees.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making the addition based on the excel sheet and confession without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Subhash Khattar, which confirmed that additions could not be made without incriminating evidence found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the addition of ?25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources was unwarranted and should be deleted.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court on 1st June, 2018.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates