Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Kabul Chawla on 29 March, 2016
Besides, we also find substance in the
ITA No. 426/Del./2015 13
contention of the Learned AR that assessment under sec. 153 A of the Act in
absence of incriminating material found during the course of search at the
premises of the assessee and in absence of abatement of assessment on the date
of search, cannot be made in the present case as per the above cited decisions
including the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Assessing Officer was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153
A and authorities below were also not justified in making and sustaining the
addition in question merely on the basis of a hard disc found during the course of
search at the premises of Aerens Group without any corroborative evidence in
support. We thus hold that the assessee/appellant succeeds on both The above
issues i.e. on validity of assumption of jurisdiction under sec. 153A and the
addition in question. The grounds involving the above issues are accordingly
allowed."
Asha Rani Lakhotia, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 16 January, 2018
6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the
entire material on record and we find that the case of assessee is squarely
covered by the decisions of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Asha Rani
Lakhotia vs. ACIT(supra), where the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour
of the assessee observing as under :
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Prem Nath Nagpal on 4 May, 2007
"8. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals)
has upheld the addition in question mainly on the basis of (i) the details written
on the hard disc found during the course of search from the premises Aerens
Group, wherein payment through cheque and cash have been mentioned against
the name of assessee at Sr. No.32; Shri I.E. Soomar appearing at Sr. No. 39 of the
said hard disc had admitted the cash investment of Rs.6.64 crores being made in
the said project and had paid the taxes on the same; (iii) the said hard disc
cannot be relied upon in part as the assessee has admitted the payment through
cheque but denied the cash payment shown therein etc. In our view, a huge
addition of Rs.3,21,00,000 cannot be made in a casual manner without having
corroborative evidence in support. It is a prevailing practice in the dealings of
immoveable properties that cash amount, if any, out of the agreed consideration
is paid during the course of execution/registration of the sale deed and
admittedly in the present case no sale deed or other mode of transfer has been
effected. Merely because name of the assessee is appearing in the said hard disc
and amongst other investors are investor Shri I.E. Soomar appearing in the said
hard disc has admitted payment of cash amount, cannot be a basis for arriving at
a definite conclusion, in absence of corroborative evidence in, support, that the
assessee had also paid the amount of Rs.3,21,00,000 in cash. The Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal
(supra) wherein Assessing Officer had made certain additions under sec. 69 of
the Act on the basis of the documents found during search at a place of third
party which indicated that assessee had purchased a plot by paying
consideration in cash, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the Assessing
Officer could not prove by evidence that said documents belonged to the assessee
and thafany on money transaction had taken place. The documents at the best
only showed tentative/projected purchase consideration held the Hon'ble High
Court.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Alpha Mills Pvt. Ltd on 15 July, 2015
Again, in the case of CIT vs. Alpha Impact Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold that addition to assessee's income
in respect of additional sales consideration received in sale of land merely on the
basis of Email recovered during the course of search action at the premises of
another person and there being no independent material available supporting
such additions, was not justified.
1