9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 119 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted interest income - Addition based on seized papers - HELD THAT - In the seized paper name of the assessee is not mentioned. It is stated cash paid to BDR through Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Vikram. No statement of Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Vikram, if any, have been mentioned in the assessment order. It is not clear whether any interest have been paid to the assessee or not. Since the laptop and seized Diary belong to Shri Ravinder Gupta and his statement was recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act in the course of search in their ASL Group of cases and he denied in his statement to have made any interest payment to assessee, therefore, no liability could be fasten on assessee to prove that assessee received any interest. In the absence of any evidence connecting the assessee with the receipt of interest, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly came to the conclusion that it is not a case of making addition against the assessee. The above decisions relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Assessee squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and supports the finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that it is not a case of making any addition against the assessee.. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
Challenging deletion of addition of ?1.90 crores on account of undisclosed interest receipts for A.Y. 2014-15. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Undisclosed Interest Receipts The case involved the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of ?1.90 crores on account of undisclosed interest receipts for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) issued a show cause notice to the assessee regarding the interest amount received from M/s. Allied Strips Limited (ASL). The assessee denied receiving any interest and explained that the seized documents did not belong to them. The A.O. made the addition despite the denial, based on the seized diary and laptop entries. The A.O. did not accept the contention of the assessee, leading to the appeal. Issue 2: CIT(A) Decision The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A), who noted that there was no agreement for interest and that the author of the seized documents denied any payment of interest to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) found that no corroborative evidence was found during the search to support the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the case in detail and deleted the addition, emphasizing the lack of justification for concluding any payment or accrual of interest. The Ld. CIT(A) highlighted the failure of the A.O. to address various issues raised by the assessee and the lack of reasoning or discussion in the A.O.'s order. Issue 3: Appellate Tribunal Decision The Revenue's appeal was based on the argument that since other entries in the seized paper were explained, adverse inference against the assessee was justified. However, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated that no corroborative evidence linked the assessee to the interest receipts, as confirmed by statements of ASL group members. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no liability could be imposed on the assessee without evidence of interest payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of evidence connecting the assessee with interest receipts justified the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the lack of legal proof for the presumption made by the A.O. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed interest receipts, emphasizing the lack of evidence linking the assessee to the alleged payments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of legal proof and the absence of corroborative evidence during the search, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
