9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 120 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - It is clear that the Settlement Commission has not made any further addition in respect to the Property at Motia Khan, Karol Bagh. The Settlement Commission has however made an addition of ₹ 5 crores in the hands of both Pradeep Aggarwal Group and Dinesh Jain group on account of unexplained transactions (recorded on loose papers) in respect of the properties brought before the Settlement Commission and hence any further addition made by the Assessing Officer would result in a case of double addition. Thus the addition of ₹ 47,02,750/- made by the Assessing Officer has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same and decide the issue against the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property. 2. Adjudication of the issue by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. 3. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order. Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Expenses in Respect of Motia Khan Property The case involved a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, where documents related to the assessee were seized. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 47,02,750 on account of unexplained expenses under section 69C r.w.s. 37 of the Act. The AO noted that the onus was on the assessee to prove the expenses, which remained unexplained. The expenses were related to the construction of two properties, including Motia Khan property. The AO attributed 50% of the total expenditure to the assessee company and another company. The AO completed the assessment under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition. Issue 2: Adjudication by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission The assessee contended that the addition of unexplained expenses related to Motia Khan property was covered by the order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Act. The Settlement Commission's order dated 31.12.2010 stated that no further addition was required regarding the Motia Khan property. The Settlement Commission had already made additions in the hands of other groups based on seized papers. The CIT(A) referred to relevant portions of the Settlement Commission's order to support the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the AO's addition was rightly deleted based on the Settlement Commission's findings. Issue 3: Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Settlement Commission's decision precluded any further addition in respect of the Motia Khan property. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The issue was decided against the Revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unexplained expenses in respect of the Motia Khan property based on the Settlement Commission's findings.
|
