DCIT Vs Metrocity Homes (ITAT Nagpur)
ITAT Nagpur held that addition made on the basis of dumb documents, loose paper containing scribbling, rough/vague noting’s in the absence of any corroborative material is not tenable in law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Facts- The assessee is a Partnership firm. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 25/06/2019, in the case of Shri Prashant Bongirwar. During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar.
AO completed assessment u/s. 153C r/w section 143(3) of the Act, by passing assessment order dated 28/09/2021, determining total income of Rs. 2,32,54,426/- after making various additions related to unexplained money u/s. 69A and unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. CIT(A) granted full relief to the assessee. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the addition was made on the basis of impounded documents, as the Assessing Officer had not been able to adduce or bring on record any corroborative evidence to show that higher consideration was actually received by assessee outside the books of account to match with the figures of difference appearing in loose sheet. Further, the Assessing Officer’s examination was very casual and not based either on the possible further enquiries or workings. No effective arguments were made to counter the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by CIT(A) which forces us to take a view other than the view taken by CIT(A). Hence, the impugned order passed by CIT(A) is hereby upheld.
