For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and claimed that same are not valid and bad in law, liable to be quashed. The assessee also challenged the addition of 23,10,000/- on account of undisclosed rent. Held that—it is clear that the impounded document did not belong to the assessee, therefore, onus was upon the tenant company to explain the impounded document. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to hold impounded documents belong to the assessee. Sh. Ravinder Singh did not confirm if the tenant company has paid cash of 33 lakh to the assessee as rent security or advance rent. The AO, even as per the impounded document mentioned in the assessment order that the impounded document shows 33 lakh rent security received in cash during the year but the AO did not affirm that the alleged amount of 33 lakh in cash have been received by the assessee. Even the tenant has not confirmed to have paid any cash of 33 lakh to the assessee. Therefore, no credence could be given to the seized/impounded paper because it did not contain any specific thing against the assessee. The seized document is not reliable as it was not supported by Sh. Ravinder Singh in his statement, if any; cash of 33 lakh have been paid to the assessee. Thus, there is no basis or material available on record to justify the addition of 33 lakh in the hands of the assessee. The authorities below thus, were unjustified in making addition of 33 lakh in the hands of the assessee as unexplained rental income received for the above property. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961—The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and claimed that same are not valid and bad in law, liable to be quashed. The assessee also challenged the addition of 23,10,000/- on account of undisclosed rent.

Held that—it is clear that the impounded document did not belong to the assessee, therefore, onus was upon the tenant company to explain the impounded document. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to hold impounded documents belong to the assessee. Sh. Ravinder Singh did not confirm if the tenant company has paid cash of 33 lakh to the assessee as rent security or advance rent. The AO, even as per the impounded document mentioned in the assessment order that the impounded document shows 33 lakh rent security received in cash during the year but the AO did not affirm that the alleged amount of 33 lakh in cash have been received by the assessee. Even the tenant has not confirmed to have paid any cash of 33 lakh to the assessee. Therefore, no credence could be given to the seized/impounded paper because it did not contain any specific thing against the assessee.

The seized document is not reliable as it was not supported by Sh. Ravinder Singh in his statement, if any; cash of 33 lakh have been paid to the assessee. Thus, there is no basis or material available on record to justify the addition of 33 lakh in the hands of the assessee. The authorities below thus, were unjustified in making addition of 33 lakh in the hands of the assessee as unexplained rental income received for the above property. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition.[KUMKUM KANODIA VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NEW DELHI.] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [18] [ITAT DELHI]