Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : PCIT Vs Sh. Trilok Chand Choudhary (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : ITA 271/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/10/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

PCIT Vs Sh. Trilok Chand Choudhary (Delhi High Court)

CASE LAW ON MOU FOUND IN PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY : ADDITIONS DELETED: PCIT v. Trilok Chand Choudhary – [2023] (Delhi)

No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU. Assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. A search operation was carried out on the premises of the assessee. During the search proceedings, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for investment in property between two parties was found in which one party made a payment of Rs. 20 crores in cash. AO summoned the parties to MOU wherein one party admitted in his statement that he had signed the seized MOU at the direction of the assessee in exchange for commission income. However later, he changed his statement and stated that a cash transaction of Rs. 20 crores occurred at the assessee’s office in the presence of the assessee, and the cash was given to the parties in this office. Relying upon the second statement, the Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 20 crores to the income of the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by AO but subsequently deleted them by the Delhi Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal to Delhi High Court was filed.

The Delhi High Court held that the MOU was recovered from the premises of the assessee but as per the terms of the MOU, the assessee was not a party or a witness to the transaction. Also, no cash was found or seized during the search operation. Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not even remotely connected to MOU.  Further, the second statement changed by the party to the transaction was not corroborated by any evidence. Thus, the subsequent statement cannot be considered reliable. Thus, AO committed an error in framing the opinion.  Accordingly, there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal deleting addition and the same was to be upheld.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

I am a Chartered Accountant in Practice from last 32 years. Any one who wants to discuss something related to Income Tax can mail me at rajeevjain_ca@yahoo.com or call on 9810581427. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Preparing for ITR Filing for Salaried Individuals: Key Precautions & Checks TDS on annual maintenance charges for maintenance of medical equipment No Section 69A addition where cash deposits reflected as sales & accepted by Revenue No assessment under section 153C in absence of incriminating material: SC Address to deliver Income Tax notice in case of person in judicial custody View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031