9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1746 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - rejecting the claim of the assessee of cash on hand - Held that - addition has been made not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search but it is on the basis of rejecting the claim of the assessee of cash on hand. A.R. has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2015 (11) TMI 1758 - ITAT INDORE Ld. D.R. could not controvert the submissions of the assessee that no incriminating material was found. Moreover, we find that the addition is sustained merely on the basis of the presumption. We therefore, direct the A.O. to delete this addition. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?1,00,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Addition of ?73,988/- for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. Addition of ?3,15,000/- and ?87,500/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 4. Addition of ?2,00,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. Addition of ?1,53,200/- and ?6,00,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?1,00,000/- for the Assessment Year 2004-05: The assessee contested the addition of ?1,00,000/- made by the A.O., which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The A.O. did not accept the cash flow statement furnished by the assessee and added ?1,00,000/- to the total income. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made on presumption rather than on any incriminating material. The assessee, being a government employee, was reasonably expected to have some cash on hand. The Tribunal found ?1,00,000/- as a reasonable amount and allowed the assessee's ground, directing the deletion of the addition. 2. Addition of ?73,988/- for the Assessment Year 2007-08: The assessee challenged the addition of ?73,988/- made by the A.O. for payment to Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti. The Tribunal observed that the addition was based on the rejection of the cash flow statement without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the decision in Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, and directed the A.O. to delete the addition, as it was based on presumption and not on any concrete evidence. 3. Addition of ?3,15,000/- and ?87,500/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09: The assessee contested the additions of ?3,15,000/- and ?87,500/- as unexplained investments. The Tribunal found that these additions were made on the basis of rejecting the cash flow statement without any incriminating material. The Tribunal, relying on the same precedents as in the previous issues, directed the deletion of these additions, noting that they were sustained merely on presumption. 4. Addition of ?2,00,000/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10: The addition of ?2,00,000/- was based on some loose papers found at the premises of Shri K.K. Sharma, not the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not have any evidence to prove that the amount was received by the assessee as income. The addition was based on presumption without any incriminating material. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, emphasizing that the burden of proof was not discharged by the A.O. 5. Addition of ?1,53,200/- and ?6,00,000/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11: The additions of ?1,53,200/- and ?6,00,000/- were contested by the assessee. The Tribunal found that these additions were made on the basis of presumption and not on any incriminating material. The Tribunal noted that the cash flow statements provided by the assessee were not rejected on any specific grounds, and the affidavits confirming the loans were not disputed. The Tribunal directed the deletion of these additions, reiterating that they were based on presumption without concrete evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee, directing the deletion of all the contested additions. The Tribunal emphasized that the additions were made on the basis of presumption and not on any incriminating material found during the search, thus failing to meet the burden of proof required under the law.
|
