2015 (6) TMI 234 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - money is credited are the alleged benami accounts of the assesse - CIT(A) confirmed part addition - Held that - AO has not made any logical enquiry and made addition of entire amount to order of settlement commission and during first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) deleted the part addition of ₹ 24,59,600/- in respect to M/s Samar Organics Pvt. Ltd. and since there is no appeal by the department about this part relief, therefore, it can be safely presumed that this deletion has been accepted by the Revenue The addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) in respect of 10 entities amounting to ₹ 25,54,150/- was subject to decision of the Settlement Commission and when the Settlement Commission has held that no addition can be made then impugned addition in the hands of assessee is not warranted and deserve to be deleted. We order accordingly. - Decided in favour of assesse.

Issues:
1. Addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Confirmation of addition by CIT(A).
3. Assessment proceedings and evidences.
4. Appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Deletion of part of the addition by CIT(A).
6. Direction to follow the order of the Settlement Commission.
7. Sustainability of the addition in the hands of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT (Appeals) regarding the addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the accounts to which the money was credited were alleged benami accounts without proper consideration of the evidences filed during assessment and appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of Rs. 25,54,150 out of the total addition of Rs. 50,13,750. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides and examined the relevant material on record.

2. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 25,54,150, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the addition was made under a predetermined mindset based on materials seized during search proceedings for previous assessment years, not relevant to the current assessment year. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the justification for confirming the addition.

3. The assessment proceedings revealed unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, leading to the addition under section 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) partially allowed relief to the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to follow the Settlement Commission's order regarding the assessability of certain amounts in the hands of other individuals.

4. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both parties and the contentions raised in the appeal. It analyzed the reasoning behind the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm a part of the addition and reviewed the evidence presented during the assessment proceedings.

5. The CIT(A) deleted a portion of the addition related to a specific bank account operated by a company, M/s Samar Organics Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted the observations made by the CIT(A) regarding the corporate entity and the lack of justification for holding the company as a benami entity of the appellant, leading to the deletion of the assessed amount in that context.

6. The Tribunal also observed the direction given by the CIT(A) to follow the Settlement Commission's order in relation to other alleged accounts. The Tribunal analyzed the implications of the Settlement Commission's decision on the addition made in the hands of the assessee and the necessity to align with the Commission's findings.

7. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was subject to the Settlement Commission's decision, which later held that no addition could be made in respect of the alleged benami accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the deletion of the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee.

← Previous Next →