9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 861 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investments - cash payment from undisclosed sources for purchasing a shop - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles vs CIT 2008 (7) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that assessee cannot be called upon to explain the source of income, even if credited by the third party as assessee claimed that no such amount was invested or paid by it to third party. In this case addition was sought to be made on the basis of entries in the books of third party showing payment made by assessee to said party. We have no hesitation in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition as unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee. Thus we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue and the same is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 1.64 crores as unexplained investment. Summary: 1. Validity of the Reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3): The case involves a reassessment order for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14, where the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the retail business of garments, originally filed a return admitting a total income of Rs. 1,13,060. This return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was later reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 based on information from M/s. Dev Procon Ltd.'s proceedings before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), indicating that the assessee had advanced Rs. 1.64 crores in cash for purchasing a shop, which was believed to be from undisclosed sources. 2. Addition of Rs. 1.64 Crores as Unexplained Investment: The assessee objected to the reassessment, requesting details and evidence of the alleged cash payment. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) added Rs. 1.64 crores as undisclosed income based on a list provided by M/s. Dev Procon Ltd. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, noting that the addition was based solely on a cash flow statement submitted by M/s. Dev Procon Ltd. before the Settlement Commission, which did not specifically name the assessee. The CIT(A) followed judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Vineeta Gupta, which held that declarations made by third parties in settlement proceedings cannot bind non-parties. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that there was no concrete evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the department failed to provide seized materials or statements proving the alleged cash payment by the assessee. It cited several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in ITO Vs. Bharat A. Mehta and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kishinchand Chellaram, which stressed the necessity of providing an opportunity for cross-examination and concrete evidence for such additions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of the Rs. 1.64 crores addition. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the reassessment order adding Rs. 1.64 crores as unexplained investment was deleted due to lack of evidence and procedural lapses. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 13-10-2023.
|
