9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 369 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of unexplained credit - seized papers belonged to the assessee, therefore, the addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the additions - Held that - CIT(A) deleted the said addition on the basis ignoring that protective addition in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the case of Shri Hari Shankar Goyal is still pending with the A.O. on the basis of High Court order but the CIT(A) noted that there is no dispute about the disclosure of undisclosed income of Rs.23,71,076/-, which includes Rs.23,50,000/-, before the Settlement Commission in the hands of Late Shri Hari Shankar Goyal, Legal Heir but the fact that what was the final outcome from the case of Shri Hari Shankar Goyal which was pending with the A.O. on the basis of High Court Order - The deletion made by the CIT(A) is little premature as the CIT(A) has deleted the addition without recording the fact of final outcome of assessment in the case of Sahri Hari Shankar Goyal - send back this issue to the file of CIT(A) - in favour of revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- made on account of unexplained credit. 2. Protective addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of the Addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- Made on Account of Unexplained Credit: The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of unexplained credit. The A.O. had made this addition based on seized documents during a search on the Goyal Group, which indicated that the assessee, an employee of the Goyal Group, had taken unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/-. The A.O. noted that these transactions were reflected in the income tax returns and explained satisfactorily by the assessee. However, since the amount was declared as concealed income by Shri Harishankar Goyal before the Settlement Commission, the A.O. made a protective addition in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the amount of Rs. 23,50,000/- was already disclosed and accepted as income of Shri Harishankar Goyal by the Settlement Commission. The CIT(A) noted that the additional income disclosed by Shri Harishankar Goyal included the unsecured loan of Rs. 23,50,000/- in the name of the assessee and Rs. 21,076/- towards interest paid to him. The CIT(A) concluded that since the amount was already disclosed and taxed in the hands of Shri Harishankar Goyal, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation. 2. Protective Addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- in the Hands of the Assessee: The A.O. made a protective addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee, reasoning that the assessment in the case of Shri Harishankar Goyal was still pending. The CIT(A) found that there was no dispute regarding the disclosure of the amount in the hands of Shri Harishankar Goyal, as both the CIT and the Settlement Commission had accepted the undisclosed income of Rs. 23,71,076/-, which included the Rs. 23,50,000/- loan. However, the CIT(A) did not consider the final outcome of the assessment in the case of Shri Harishankar Goyal, which was pending due to a High Court order. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. made the protective addition because the assessment of Shri Harishankar Goyal was pending. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without verifying the final outcome of the assessment in Shri Harishankar Goyal's case. The Tribunal emphasized that the deletion was premature and directed the CIT(A) to verify the final outcome of the assessment in Shri Harishankar Goyal's case before deciding on the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for this limited purpose and directed the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue back to the CIT(A) to verify the final outcome of the assessment in the case of Shri Harishankar Goyal and to decide the issue accordingly after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.
|
