Dy. CIT v. Pramukh Builders - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2008 TaxPub(DT) 0800 (Ahd-Trib) : (2008) 112 ITD 0179 : (2008) 115 TTJ 0330 : (2008) 005 DTR 0166 Dy CIT v. Pramukh Builders INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Assessment - Additions to income -Disclosure of facts Assessee-firm was engaged in construction activity as a developer. In course of search proceedings, statement of one of partner K was recorded and as per statement, K admitted that on money was received by assessee in respect of its two projects. Moreover, return of income it did not include said disclosed amount and submitted that in absence of any evidence of charging any on-money in respect of its projects, merely on basis of said statement of K, no addition could be made. AO rejected assessee submission and made addition to its income. *Held:* On relying upon Ks statement, in absence of any other evidence on record to show that assessee had any undisclosed income addition made by AO to income of assessee was not justified. Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 143 A.Y. : 1994-95 Decision: In favour of assessee. Case Law Analysis:Asstt. CIT v. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867/148 Taxman 45 (Ahd.) (Mag.), Asstt. CIT v. Hastimal K. Bhansali [IT Appeal No. 348 (Ahd.) of 1998, dated 22-8-2005], Adinath Construction [IT Appeal Nos. 1975 and 1976 (Ahd.) of 1999 and IT Appeal Nos. 2167 and 2168 (Ahd.) of 1999, dated 21-10-2005], Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), CST v. H.M. Esufali [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC), Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/ 80 Taxman 89 (SC), Council of ICAI v. Mukesh R. Shah [2004] 134 Taxman 265 (Guj.), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 782/ 118 Taxman 252 (All.), ITO v. Bipin Faraskhana [2000] 73 ITD 334 (Ahd.) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 96 ITD 113 (Mum.) Dy CIT v. Pramukh Builders SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2008 TaxPub(DT) 0800 (Ahd-Trib) : (2008) 112 ITD 0179 : (2008) 115 TTJ 0330 : (2008) 005 DTR 0166

Dy CIT v. Pramukh Builders

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Assessment - Additions to income -Disclosure of facts

Assessee-firm was engaged in construction activity as a developer. In course of search proceedings, statement of one of partner K was recorded and as per statement, K admitted that on money was received by assessee in respect of its two projects. Moreover, return of income it did not include said disclosed amount and submitted that in absence of any evidence of charging any on-money in respect of its projects, merely on basis of said statement of K, no addition could be made. AO rejected assessee submission and made addition to its income. Held: On relying upon Ks statement, in absence of any other evidence on record to show that assessee had any undisclosed income addition made by AO to income of assessee was not justified.

Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 143

A.Y. : 1994-95
Decision: In favour of assessee.

Case Law Analysis:Asstt. CIT v. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867/148 Taxman 45 (Ahd.) (Mag.), Asstt. CIT v. Hastimal K. Bhansali [IT Appeal No. 348 (Ahd.) of 1998, dated 22-8-2005], Adinath Construction [IT Appeal Nos. 1975 and 1976 (Ahd.) of 1999 and IT Appeal Nos. 2167 and 2168 (Ahd.) of 1999, dated 21-10-2005], Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), CST v. H.M. Esufali [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC), Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/ 80 Taxman 89 (SC), Council of ICAI v. Mukesh R. Shah [2004] 134 Taxman 265 (Guj.), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 782/ 118 Taxman 252 (All.), ITO v. Bipin Faraskhana [2000] 73 ITD 334 (Ahd.) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 96 ITD 113 (Mum.)

Dy CIT v. Pramukh Builders