9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITAT deleted addition - Held that:- So far as the second amount ₹ 41,32,800/- is concerned there cannot be any doubt that the above was sought to be made in respect of the period 1999-2000. Clearly that was beyond the block period and therefore time-barred. That apart the CIT(Appeals) noted that after the remand during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the affidavit relied upon by the assessee in Brij Bhushan Gupta was not adversely commented upon. This being a factual finding the Court finds no reason to interfere with the ITAT’s order. Also the addition was made only on the basis of some loose papers and a chit. This too would fall in the same category of material which could not have been the sole basis for addition without some surveillance of the substantiation. Consequently, the ITAT’s reasoning cannot be faulted.- Decided against the revenue. Undervaluation of property - addition on account of differential value added - Held that:- In the absence of any incriminating evidence with respect to payment over and above the reported amount, the revenue is under the burden of proving that in fact there was understatement or concealment of income. In the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03, 200304, 200405 and 2005 -06 respectively. 4. The AO also determined salary - on the basis of the document said to be a letter/e-mail seized during the course of search operations- ₹ 28,50,000/-,Rs.27700,000/-, ₹ 33,25,000/- and ₹ 36,00,000/- in A.Ys 2002-03, 2003-04 5 2004-05, and 2005-06 respective1y as against the assessee s salary declared in its turn of income at ₹ 11,03,867/-, ₹ 16,47,733/-, ₹ 8,29,400/- and ₹ 5,39,683/- for the aforesaid years respectively. 5. The AO also premising himself upon certain loose papers marked as Annexure A-10 party R-II added as follows : Assessment Year Amount 2002-03 Rs.17,46,133/- 2003-04 Rs.10,52, 267/- 2004-05 Rs.24,95, 600/- 2005-06 Rs.30,06,317/- 6. The AO rejected the affidavit furnished as an additional evidence and brought to tax these amounts. 7. The assessee s appeal to the CIT succeeded. The CIT(Appeals) after elaborated discussion of the relevant case law and factual analysis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents seized shows that it had no connection with the assessee or his family. It was submitted that prior to 30.6.2000 the assessee was an independent consultant who had entered into an agreement for this purpose with a private software consultancy and that the agreement dated 30.4.2000 was on the record. However, for the later period i.e. after 1.7.2000, the assessee became a salaried employee of C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. 8. It was submitted by Mr. Sabharwal, learned senior counsel that the assessment was finalized on the basis of salary income at ₹ 11,40,600/- under Section 143(3) read with Section 152A. Consequently it was urged by counsel that it was unreasonable to add amounts for the previous block period which were sought to be brought to tax slowly on the basis of the document which had no connection or bearing with the assessee s declared income. The learned counsel relied upon several decisions including Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) and CIT v/s Kulwant Rai (2002) 291 ITR 36 (Del). So far as ₹ 41,32,800/- is concerned learned counsel pointed out that the assessee had furnished expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the past, four years. I have also been told categorically that any further improvement in designation is not possible. I believe that I have worked extremely hard for the company. I have fought in extreme rough climate where everyone had given up on the company and you were prepared to-write off all your investments. I have made many sacrifices. I have also given up other lucrative offers to make this company a success. Most of the companies, which started alongwith us or even before us such as C1 ME, our own MEOL, Seesaini and even Commerce-one itself, have gone bankrupt. These companies had even much higher investments than us. I believe I have been able to make company stand on its own feet and on a path to progress further, however, I believe that it is now high time that - company recognize my efforts and give me the adequate compensation. I strongly believe that I can take this company to great heights, however, I believe that I can do so, only if I am highly motivated. With best regards, 9. The ITAT - which endorsed the CIT(Appeals) s conclusions was of the opinion that since the letter was not addressed to anyone and both undated and unsigned, the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited purview of Section 260-A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is, hereby, dismissed. 11. In CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) cited by the assessee, the Court in a similar situation held as follows : 11. In Mahavir Woolen Mills (supra) case, during the course of search and seizure proceedings, certain slips were found, which, the Assessing Officer concluded, contained details of payment beyond those which were made by cheques and drafts and were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee's stand before the Tribunal was that the documents were 'dumb documents' which did not contain full details about the dates of payment and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not be relied upon and made the basis of addition. The Tribunal considered this aspect and observed that on comparison of the seized documents and ledger accounts of the parties, the seized documents could not be regarded as 'dumb documents'. 12. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore time-barred. That apart the CIT(Appeals) noted that after the remand during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the affidavit relied upon by the assessee in Brij Bhushan Gupta was not adversely commented upon. This being a factual finding the Court finds no reason to interfere with the ITAT s order. 15. That leaves the Court with the addition initially made by the AO for the sum of ₹ 3.64 crores. Here too the addition was made only on the basis of some loose papers and a chit. This too would fall in the same category of material which could not have been the sole basis for addition without some surveillance of the substantiation. Consequently, the ITAT s reasoning cannot be faulted. 16. In ITA 77/2014, which relates to AY 2001-02, the revenue also claims to be aggrieved, in addition, by the deletion of the benefit granted under Section 80HHE, in respect of the sum of ₹ 10,31,892/-. The AO held that it was a salaried income from C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. even though the payment was made from MEOL. The ITAT noticed that for this particular amount the AO had relied upon very same document seized during the search proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) had rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
