9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 50 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - unexplained cash receipts - HELD THAT - In his enquiry report the AO has not disputed that the notings in the impugned seized documents are duly recorded in the books of account. However, in his enquiry report the AO stated that the appellant might have fabricated additional evidences and the books of account are forged/doctored. We do not find any merit in these allegations made by the AO. The transactions pertain to F.Y 2008 09. Search operations were conducted on 26.09.2014. Financials of F.Y 2008 09 were filed alongwith return of income of A.Y 2009 10. Therefore, there is no occasion for the assessee to doctor the accounts which were already filed with the revenue. Since the first appellate authority has thoroughly examined the entries in the regular books of account, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the first appellate authority. Ground No. 1 is, accordingly, dismissed. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT - Ledger account for purchase of land and ledger account of the parties from whom the land was purchased were duly examined by the ld. CIT(A). The allegation of the Assessing Officer that the books of account must have been prepared after the search operation is without any basis. It is common practice during search proceedings that the revenue seizes the books of account along with incriminating documents and even if the books of account are not seized, copies of the same are taken. In either situation, it would be impossible for the assessee to fabricate/fudge /doctor the entries in the books of account. Since the investment has been found duly recorded in the regular books of account, provisions of section 69 of the Act do not apply and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 is, accordingly, dismissed. Unexplained cash payments - HELD THAT - DR could not point out any factual error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and since the documentary evidences examined and verified by the first appellate authority show that the impugned transaction related to F.Y 2006 07 and, in our considered opinion, the same cannot be considered in the block period relating to the present search assessments. As no factual error or defect has been pointed out, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 3 is accordingly, dismissed. Unexplained cash - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT - As carefully perused the factual findings given by the first appellate authority and no factual error has been pointed out before us by the ld.DR in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Whereas the findings of the ld. CIT(A) clearly show that he has examined all the entries in the books of account of the appellant as well as Greenwell Mark Buildwell Pvt Ltd. Since the entries are duly recorded in the regular books of account, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground is dismissed. Addition of commission - HELD THAT - On careful perusal of the impugned seized document exhibited elsewhere, no logical inference can be drawn and it is a fact that the word commission has not been mentioned anywhere. The notings are simply jottings of figures, from which no logical conclusion can be drawn, and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly treated the said document as dumb document. We do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed. Addition on account of differences in parallel set of accounts - AO alleged that the assessee is maintaining two parallel set of books of accounts - HELD THAT - Entire assessment order is silent about any such parallel set of books of account found and seized during the course of search proceedings. Trial balance is prepared from the books of account and it is always that the trial balance figures frequently change at the close of the accounting year, as necessary adjustments entries are passed at the close of the accounting year. There may be differences in the figures, but the fact of the matter is that, which trial balance was used for preparing the final set of profit and loss account and balance sheet, which is must most relevant. The Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned this fact. We further find that before the ld. CIT(A), the difference in the two trial balances pertaining to some closing entries were duly reconciled and the ld. CIT(A) has examined the same. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 3 is dismissed. Unexplained cash payments for the purchase of agricultural land - HELD THAT - As the said cash payment has been found to be reflected in the cashbook which has been mentioned and verified by the first appellate authority and no factual errorhas been pointed out. In our considered opinion, once the transaction is found to be recorded in the regular books of account, provisions of section 69 of the Act do not apply and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Addition u/s 68 - identity, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the lender/depositor - HELD THAT - The identity cannot be questioned because one of the applicants is assessed at the very same circle as the appellant and the other applicant is also a taxpayer, which is evident from the tax returns. Genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted with as the transactions have been made through banking channels, duly recorded in the regular books of account. In so far as the capacity is concerned, the assessee s onus is to explain the capacity, prime facie,and which on the given facts of the case in hand, as discussed elsewhere, we are of the view that the assessee has successfully explained the capacity of the investor company. Merely because the director did not attend the proceedings would not justify the action of the Assessing Officer knowing the fact that one of the applicant is assessed in the same circle and the other applicant is also assessed and as mentioned elsewhere, the directors of the other applicant are directors of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be said that the share applicant companies are strangers to the assessee. No merit in the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Additions u/s 68 relates to share application money with share premium - HELD THAT - Appellant has successfully discharged the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act and do not find any merit in the impugned addition. Addition on the basis of surrender made - AO has made the addition only because in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the director has surrendered ₹ 10 crores - HELD THAT - There was nothing to surrender and surrender was without any application of mind and the facts and circumstances clearly show that that was no undisclosed income which needed to be surrendered. Considering the facts of the case in totality in the light of the factsas discussed in the appeals of the A.Ys supra we do not find any merit in both the additions.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of Revenue Appeals due to low tax effect. 2. Admission of additional evidences by CIT(A) without following Rule 46A. 3. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash receipts, unexplained investments, unexplained cash payments, and differences in parallel set of accounts. 4. Deletion of additions made on account of unexplained share capital and share premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Validity of assessments framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 6. Enhancement of income by CIT(A) based on statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of Revenue Appeals Due to Low Tax Effect: The appeals by the Revenue for AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 6085/DEL/2019) and AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 4880/DEL/2019) were dismissed as they were hit by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which specifies that appeals with tax effect less than ?50 lakhs are not maintainable. 2. Admission of Additional Evidences by CIT(A) Without Following Rule 46A: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidences without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, it was found that the CIT(A) had duly complied with the principles of natural justice by sending the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer for a remand report. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance and dismissed the appeals. 3. Deletion of Additions Made by the Assessing Officer: - Unexplained Cash Receipts (AY 2010-11): The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?43.39 crores made on account of unexplained cash receipts, finding that the receipts were duly recorded in the regular books of account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the recording of these receipts in the books of account. - Unexplained Investment (AY 2010-11): The addition of ?7.08 crores was deleted by the CIT(A) as the investment was found duly recorded in the regular books of account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the books of account could not have been fabricated after the search operations. - Unexplained Cash Payments (AY 2010-11): The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?7.02 crores, finding that the transaction pertained to FY 2005-06, which was beyond the block period under consideration. The Tribunal upheld this decision. - Differences in Parallel Set of Accounts (AY 2014-15): The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?27.97 crores, finding that the difference was due to incomplete trial balances and not due to maintaining two parallel sets of books of account. The Tribunal upheld this decision. 4. Deletion of Additions Made on Account of Unexplained Share Capital and Share Premium: - AY 2012-13: The addition of ?21.13 crores was deleted as the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing necessary details and establishing the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the share applicants. - AY 2013-14: The addition of ?13.46 crores was deleted on similar grounds, with the Tribunal noting that the share application money was earlier in the books as loans and was ploughed back as share application money. - AY 2014-15: The addition of ?54.90 lakhs was deleted as the share applicant company was found to be related to the assessee and had complied with the summons issued under Section 131. - AY 2015-16: The Tribunal deleted the addition of ?10 crores and the enhancement of ?15 crores made by the CIT(A), finding that the surrender made by the director under Section 132(4) was without reference to any incriminating material and was under duress. 5. Validity of Assessments Framed Under Section 153A: The assessee's appeals challenging the validity of assessments framed under Section 153A were dismissed as the assessee did not press these legal grounds. 6. Enhancement of Income by CIT(A) Based on Statement Recorded Under Section 132(4): The enhancement of ?15 crores made by the CIT(A) was found to be without basis as there was no reference to any incriminating material or undisclosed income. The Tribunal deleted the enhancement. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee, directing the deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
|
