9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1208 - AT - Income TaxAddition as cash payment - un-disclosed income of the assessee - HELD THAT - Factum of receipts found from the possession of the assessee for the return of loan by the assessee to Shri Anil Oberoi. The said loan was returned in cash. The receipts were found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000 and the same evidences the transaction of payment of money by the assessee. The assessee had failed to offer any explanation vis- -vis the source of the payment of said amount of Rs. 8 lacs repaid by the assessee. No merit in the claim of the assessee that the loan of Rs. 8 lacs was still outstanding in its books of account and the books of account of M/s Oberoi Plastics Ltd. Further the un-disclosed income declared by Shri Ramesh NIkhanj and Shri H.S.Chadha AOP had no relevance to the documents found in the case of the assessee. We reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals) and confirm the addition of Rs. 8 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. Addition made on account of un-disclosed sale of eggs - HELD THAT - As per section 158BC of the Act the computation of un-disclosed income of the block period shall be aggregate of the total income of the previous year falling within the block period computed on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account and/or other documents or information as is available with the Assessing Officer reduced by the total income declared by the assessee. The basis for computing the un-disclosed income of the block period in the hands of any assessee is on the basis of the evidence found as a result of search. The search operations were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000 and a spiral diary was impounded. However the diary though had certain notings but do not bear any date and it cannot be presumed that the said diary relate to the period prior to 20.7.2000 i.e. the date of search. The addition made on such surmises cannot stand and we confirm the order of the CIT (Appeals) in this regard. The second aspect of the said addition was explanation given by the assessee during the appellate proceedings that even the total of the figures was incorrect and the Assessing Officer had failed to consider both the opening and closing stock while computing the sales in the hands of the assessee. The addition on this account also is deleted. The documents seized during the course of search at best are dumb documents and cannot be relied upon to make the aforesaid addition. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue. Undisclosed income for the block period on the perusal of certain documents seized - HELD THAT - CIT(A) under the provision of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act is to pass a speaking order on the facts and circumstances before it. However we find that the CIT(A) has failed to give a finding in respect of the issues raised before it except for upholding the claim of the assessee that all the above said amounts are included in the peak investment taxed in the hands of the AOP. The CIT(A) refers to the arguments of the assessee in respect of assessment years 1995-96 to 2001-02 being outside the purview provisions of Chapter XIV B being worked out on hypothetical basis and the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not appealed by the Revenue. In the interest of justice we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issues pointed out by us in paras 22 23 in line with our directions in the para hereinabove and after considering the facts and totality and after due verification of the details of peak investment worked out in the hands of the AOP both in respect of the quantum and the persons whose income is included in such peak investments. CIT(A) shall allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is clarified that issue raised before by the Revenue is only in respect of deletion of addition on account of interest earned for assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and thus issues sent back to the file of CIT(A) are only in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8 lacs on account of loan repayment to M/s Oberai Plastics Ltd. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 29,27,821 on account of undisclosed sales of eggs. 3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,67,133 on account of unaccounted expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 8 Lacs on Account of Loan Repayment to M/s Oberai Plastics Ltd: The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 8 lacs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of loan repayment to M/s Oberai Plastics Ltd. During a search and seizure operation, four receipts of Rs. 2 lacs each were found, indicating cash payments. The AO treated this amount as undisclosed income under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act due to the assessee's failure to produce confirmations or reconcile these amounts with the regular books of accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, noting that the loan was still outstanding in the books of both the assessee and M/s Oberai Plastics Ltd. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in the assessee's claim and reversed the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 8 lacs as undisclosed income, emphasizing the evidence found during the search. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 29,27,821 on Account of Undisclosed Sales of Eggs: The Revenue also contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 29,27,821 made by the AO based on a spiral diary found during the search, which allegedly contained figures related to egg production and sales. The AO interpreted these figures as indicating undisclosed sales. The assessee argued that the diary contained rough calculations by staff members and had no evidentiary value, as it did not bear any dates, months, or years, nor did it indicate the word 'tray' or 'egg.' The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, considering the diary as "dumb documents" and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the diary did not provide a reliable basis for the addition, as it lacked specific dates and could not be presumed to relate to the period before the search. 3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 5,67,133 on Account of Unaccounted Expenditure under Section 69C: The third issue involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,67,133 made by the AO on account of unaccounted expenditure for interest payments to Shri Ramesh Nikhanj and Shri H.S. Chadha's families. The CIT(A) referenced a detailed discussion in a related case involving the same parties, where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee, and consequently, there was no merit in a separate addition in the individual cases or group companies. The Tribunal noted that the issue was linked to another appeal (IT(SS)A No.4/Chd/2007) and followed the same reasoning as in a related case, remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in line with the Tribunal's directions in the sister concern's case. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal partly, confirming the addition of Rs. 8 lacs as undisclosed income, upholding the deletion of Rs. 29,27,821 based on the unreliable diary, and remitting the issue of Rs. 5,67,133 back to the CIT(A) for further consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence-based additions and proper verification of facts in line with established legal principles.
|
