9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 358 - AT - Income TaxAddition in account of undisclosed income - AO included the income of assessee s wife and in his undisclosed income - Held that - As the assessee is held to be the owner of M/s Transworld International upto assessment year 1996-97 and his to be owner of this proprietary concern from assessment year 1997-98 the income from this concern for assessment year 1997-98 cannot included in the hands of the assessee - that the addition has been deleted in wife s case also on the ground that the transactions of proprietary concern had been taken into account and profit from this concern was declared by her at Rs. 1,04,996/- and this finding has not been challenged by the revenue - following the rule of consistency CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. House hold expenses cannot be estimated while making assessment of undisclosed income under chapter XIVB. Thus CIT(DR) has not been able to show that any material was found in search in respect of this issue. Therefore, this ground cannot be taken up for computing undisclosed income - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 26,27,610/- deleted by Ld. CIT(A) - Revenue's appeal. 2. Contradiction in statements regarding ownership of M/s. Transworld International by assessee's wife. 3. Challenge to the addition of Rs. 26,27,610/- by Ld. CIT DR. 4. Whether income from M/s. Transworld International belongs to the assessee or his wife? 5. Addition of Rs. 30,477/- in respect of house hold expenses. Issue 1: The revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 26,27,610/- by Ld. CIT(A). The AO's findings were based on contradictions in statements made by the assessee's wife regarding the ownership of M/s. Transworld International. The AO added the receipts to the assessee's income, but Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions, citing previous judgments and the ownership status of the wife. Issue 2: The primary issue revolved around the contradictory statements made by the assessee's wife concerning the ownership of M/s. Transworld International. The AO noted discrepancies between her statements under oath and in an affidavit, leading to the addition of income to the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) considered previous rulings and concluded that the income belonged to the wife post a specific assessment year. Issue 3: Ld. CIT DR challenged the addition of Rs. 26,27,610/-, arguing that the income from M/s. Transworld International should be attributed to either the assessee or his wife. The argument focused on the ownership of the business and the implications for tax liability, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to determine the taxable income. Issue 4: The core question was whether the income from M/s. Transworld International should be attributed to the assessee or his wife. The case delved into the ownership transition of the business, with Ld. CIT(A) considering the wife as the rightful owner post a specific assessment year based on documented evidence and previous rulings. Issue 5: Regarding the addition of Rs. 30,477/- for house hold expenses, Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that estimated additions cannot be made for determining undisclosed income during a block period assessment. The revenue challenged this deletion, but the grounds for estimating house hold expenses were not substantiated. In summary, the judgment focused on resolving the ownership dispute of M/s. Transworld International between the assessee and his wife. The AO's additions were based on contradictory statements by the wife, but Ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the wife's ownership post a specific assessment year. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in tax assessments and the need for a comprehensive approach to determine taxable income. Additionally, the deletion of house hold expenses as estimated additions during a block period assessment was upheld, emphasizing the lack of substantiating material for such inclusions.
|
