9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 862 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, are hit by the provisions of section 69B - Held that - Since the addition made by the Assessing Officer is also based on the same agreement which was found from the premises of M/s Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. and since the Tribunal after considering the various submissions made by both the sides has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue by holding that the excel sheet containing in the seized Pendrive against the amount of ₹ 12,13,11,005/-, the word stated was cost and not the sale value of the land and that in the agreement dated 01.04.2006 nowhere it was stated that the amount of ₹ 10,33,11,005/- receivable from Suncity Project (P) Ltd. was against the sale value of land in question, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition for the year under consideration in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the addition of ?2,61,50,496/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Relationship and nexus between the assessee and M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. 3. Legitimacy and implementation of the agreement dated 01.04.2006. 4. Authenticity and reliability of the contents of the pen drive seized during the search. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Addition under Section 69B: The AO made an addition of ?2,61,50,496/- to the assessee's income, invoking section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the agreement dated 01.04.2006 and documents seized during a search. The AO argued that the compensation received by the assessee represented investments not recorded in the books of accounts. However, the CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the agreement was illegal, invalid, and unimplemented. It was also noted that the funds received were unsecured loans, which were repaid, and there was no real income accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the addition could not be sustained. 2. Relationship and Nexus between the Assessee and M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd.: The AO failed to establish a clear relationship and nexus between the assessee and M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not demonstrate the nature of the relationship and that the name of the assessee did not appear in any official documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the nexus, leading to the deletion of the addition. 3. Legitimacy and Implementation of the Agreement Dated 01.04.2006: The agreement dated 01.04.2006 was a key document in the AO's assessment. The CIT(A) found that the agreement was never implemented and was merely a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The Tribunal noted that the agreement was illegal and invalid, as it spoke of the distribution of assets in an illegal manner. There was no evidence that the agreement was acted upon, and the compromise entered into in Lok Adalat further signified that the agreement was not executed. Consequently, the addition based on this agreement was deleted. 4. Authenticity and Reliability of the Pen Drive Contents: The pen drive seized during the search contained an excel file showing details of a land transaction. The AO used this to infer that the land was sold for a higher amount than recorded. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the contents of the pen drive to be unauthentic and unreliable. The Tribunal noted that the excel sheet mentioned the "cost" of the land, not the "sale value," and there was no corroborative evidence to support the AO's conclusion. The amounts received were treated as unsecured loans and were repaid, negating the AO's assertion of suppressed sale proceeds. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?2,61,50,496/- made by the AO under section 69B. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the AO's conclusions regarding the relationship between the assessee and M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd., the legitimacy of the agreement dated 01.04.2006, and the authenticity of the pen drive contents. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming that the additions made by the AO were not justified.
|
