9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 117 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in villa plot - addition was made on the basis of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI based on the facts findings by CBI - CIT-A deleted the addition - as per revenue CIT(A) ought to have decided the case before disposal of appeal by the CBI Special Court as the issue has not attained finality and is still pending - HELD THAT - An identical issue has been considered by co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT., Chennai in the case of R. Saibabu 2018 (3) TMI 1908 - ITAT CHENNAI ..where the Tribunal, after considering charge sheet filed by the CBI in the case of M/s.Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd. held that unless the Assessing Officer brought on record some additional evidences to corroborate the findings recorded by CBI in the case of M/s.Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd. to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee has paid on-money for purchase of property, no addition can be made only on the basis of charge sheet filed by the CBI, when proceedings are still pending before the CBI Special Court. Thus we are of the considered view that findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in light of the decision of ITAT., Chennai Bench is uncontroverted.The Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that findings of fact recorded by learned CIT(A) is incorrect or opposed to the facts. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?1,54,50,000 on account of unexplained investment in a villa plot. 2. Whether the CIT(A) should have awaited the CBI Special Court's decision before disposing of the appeal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?1,54,50,000, which was based on a charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information received from the DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. The AO concluded that the assessee paid on-money for the purchase of a villa plot from M/s. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. The AO’s conclusion was primarily based on the charge sheets filed by the CBI, which indicated that excess amounts were paid over and above the registered rate. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the AO's conclusion was not based on any document or independent enquiry but solely on the charge sheet filed by the CBI. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Chennai in the case of Mr. R. Saibabu, where it was held that the AO had not established, based on evidence, that the assessee had paid on-money. The CIT(A) emphasized that the CBI's case was still pending and there was no court finding regarding the assessee's unexplained investment. Issue 2: Awaiting CBI Special Court's Decision The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should not have decided the case before the disposal of the appeal by the CBI Special Court, as the issue had not attained finality. However, the CIT(A) proceeded with the decision, noting that the AO's conclusion was solely based on the CBI's charge sheet without any independent evidence. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO had not brought any independent evidence to corroborate the findings recorded by the CBI. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the case of R. Saibabu, where it was held that no addition could be made solely based on the CBI's charge sheet without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to bring any evidence to prove that the CIT(A)'s findings were incorrect or opposed to the facts. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?1,54,50,000 on account of unexplained investment. The Tribunal reiterated that without independent evidence, the AO could not make additions solely based on the CBI's charge sheet, especially when the proceedings were still pending before the CBI Special Court.
|
