9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) based on presumption, surmises and conjectures would be liable to be deleted.
Decision of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted brokerage income from E-Homes Infrastructure Private Limited rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations duly supported with the evidences brought on record including the confirmation of the brokerage payments can not be approved - addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order passed by the learned AO under Section 153A of the Act is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eye of law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the AO under Section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO on account of unaccounted brokerage income from E-Homes Infrastructure Private Limited. 6. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,04,580/- made by AO on account of alleged brokerage income received from E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. based on surmises and conjectures. The AO in the para 5.2 of the Assessment Order, has observed that assessee being a broker must have received commission @ 1% and the relevant observation is as under- "Therefore, it is evident that total investment which is facilitated by the assessee is Rs. 11,04,58,000/- and being a broker assessee must have received his commission on above investment." 7. It is seen that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee by the lower authorities without bringing any material on record to controvert the claim of the appellant is not justified and therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) based on presumption, surmises and conjectures would be liable to be deleted. 9. In the present case, the decision of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,04,580/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted brokerage income from E-Homes Infrastructure Private Limited rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations duly supported with the evidences brought on record including the confirmation of the brokerage payments (APB, Pg 26) can not be approved. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the order of the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eye of law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of assessee that the AO has passed the assessment order in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act and as such the same is bad in eyes of law. The purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without any application of mind. 6. i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 63,75,010/- made by the A on account of unaccounted brokerage income. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of the search and that no further enquiry was conducted by AO or CIT(A) in respect of explanation submitted by the assessee. Meaning thereby that the additions were made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) based on surmises and conjectures because they have failed to examine the facts of the case in the light of evidences and explanation provided by the assessee. 15. We are of the considered view that in the present year too, CIT(A) order is perverse to facts on record being based on surmises and conjectures to conclude his findings. Our view gets support from the following judgements. a. LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA, 1959 (5) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT, Dated. - May 14, 1959 b. COMMISSIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
