|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0545 (Panaji-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where assessee had produced on record certain documents by its application and those documents inter alia included reference to certain cheques which explained the source of the amount and source of expenditure, further, there was no discussion whether any materials/evidences could be admitted as evidence at the appellate stage or not, therefore, matter might be restored to AO and assessee might be directed to produce all the necessary documents/evidences before him in order to represent his case on merits.
Income from undisclosed source - Addition under section 69C - Deemed unexplained expenditure under section 69C -
Assessee was in business of Construction and development of properties. AO noted that assessee claimed cost of land at Rs. 80.00 lakhs. No documentary evidence was produced like stamp papers, registration documents to show the assessee company having legal ownership of land as envisage under the Transfer of Property Act. Further, it was also noticed that there was discrepancy in the amount and moreover assessee had not produced corroborative evidences like confirmation letter from the seller, bank pass book, etc. Thus, AO disallowed expenditure towards cost of land and brought to tax. Held: Assessee had produced on record certain documents by its application and those documents inter alia includes reference to certain cheques which explains the source of amount and the source of expenditure. In the case of Braganza Construction Pvt. Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 47 of 2012 : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8237 (Bom-HC)] had observed that Tribunal in the first round of appeal before it has not considered the application by assessee for admitting those evidences and also there was no discussion whether such materials/evidences could be admitted as evidence at appellate stage or not. Therefore, matter might be restored to AO and assessee might be directed to produce all the necessary documents/evidences before him in order to represent his case on merits.
Relied:Braganza Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT Tax Appeal No. 47 of 2012 : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8237 (Bom-HC) and Savala Associates v. ITO ITA No. 4441/M/2008 dated 27-10-2009 : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 919 (Mum-Trib).
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2002-03
IN THE ITAT, PANAJI BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT