Case Law Details
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Shroff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act for unexplained investment solely on the basis of the document that didn’t contained name of the assessee is unsustainable as the same is outside the purview of definition of section 153C(1)(a) & (b).
Facts-
A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. C. P. Exports. During the course of search proceedings some documents were found and seized related to the purchase of property by the assessee from Sr.E. Jawahar, partner of M/s. C.P.Exports after recording satisfaction in the file of M/s.C.P. Exports, the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act had been initiated that the seized documents were belonged to the assessee and the information contained therein relates to the assessee. The proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee.
Post inquiry and reply, AO made addition u/s 69B of IT Act for cash payments observed by him over and above the stamp duty of the property at Rs. 1,00,57,500 and determined the income u/s 115JBE of Rs. 1,22,57,500.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
