ACIT vs. Katrina (Kaif) Rosemary Turcotte (ITAT Mumbai)- 4 Nov 2017
1- In these circumstances, simply relying upon a untested / unverified document and without any other corroborative evidence to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received cash payment of ` 2,50,000 for hosting an event in Sidney, the addition, in our view, is unsustainable.
2- Thus, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, except the seized material, which was found from a third party it cannot be presumed that the assessee has received the cash amount of ` 30,80,000.
3- Therefore, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, without any evidence brought on record, the addition cannot be made on loose sheet / dumb documents, that too on the basis of estimation / extrapolation. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:–
i) Common Cause v/s Union Of India, 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC);
ii) CIT v/s Jayaben Ratilal Sarothiya, 222 taxman 64 (Guj.);
iii) Uday C. Thmhankan v/s DCIT, 174 TTJ 151 (Mum.); and
iv) Dr. M.K.E. Menon, 248 ITR 310 (Bom.)
4- From the assessment order it is very much clear that during survey a loose paper was found containing details of certain transactions both in cheque and in cash. However, when the loose paper was confronted to the party during survey, he had categorically stated that it was only in the nature of an offer received from some party but it has not been accepted. Similarly, when such evidence was confronted and also denied of knowing any such cash transaction and also stated that such event did not materialize through them. Therefore there is no material in the possession of the AO to demonstrate that the assessee has received any amount in cash . On the contrary, the evidences on record do indicate, though, the assessee appeared in the Dhaka event conducted through party, however, she has received her fees fully in cheque and has offered it as income in the relevant assessment year. As no material has been brought before us by the Revenue to controvert the aforesaid facts we are inclined to affirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.
For reading full text of the please refer link - http://itatonline.org/archives/acit-vs-katrina-kaif-rosemary-turcotte-itat-mumbai-s-68-in-the-absence-of-any-direct-evidence-demonstrating-that-the-assessee-received-cash-payment-no-addition-can-be-made-merely-on-presumption-and/katrina-kaif-68-cash-credits/
Question of law discussed: Mere finding some documents at the time of search will not automatically allow AO to make any addition unless some nexus is established?
Some notes/ discussion points of the case for east reference-
1- In these circumstances, simply relying upon a untested / unverified document and without any other corroborative evidence to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received cash payment of ` 2,50,000 for hosting an event in Sidney, the addition, in our view, is unsustainable.
2- Thus, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, except the seized material, which was found from a third party it cannot be presumed that the assessee has received the cash amount of ` 30,80,000.
3- Therefore, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, without any evidence brought on record, the addition cannot be made on loose sheet / dumb documents, that too on the basis of estimation / extrapolation. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:–
i) Common Cause v/s Union Of India, 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC);
ii) CIT v/s Jayaben Ratilal Sarothiya, 222 taxman 64 (Guj.);
iii) Uday C. Thmhankan v/s DCIT, 174 TTJ 151 (Mum.); and
iv) Dr. M.K.E. Menon, 248 ITR 310 (Bom.)
4- From the assessment order it is very much clear that during survey a loose paper was found containing details of certain transactions both in cheque and in cash. However, when the loose paper was confronted to the party during survey, he had categorically stated that it was only in the nature of an offer received from some party but it has not been accepted. Similarly, when such evidence was confronted and also denied of knowing any such cash transaction and also stated that such event did not materialize through them. Therefore there is no material in the possession of the AO to demonstrate that the assessee has received any amount in cash . On the contrary, the evidences on record do indicate, though, the assessee appeared in the Dhaka event conducted through party, however, she has received her fees fully in cheque and has offered it as income in the relevant assessment year. As no material has been brought before us by the Revenue to controvert the aforesaid facts we are inclined to affirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.
For reading full text of the please refer link - http://itatonline.org/archives/acit-vs-katrina-kaif-rosemary-turcotte-itat-mumbai-s-68-in-the-absence-of-any-direct-evidence-demonstrating-that-the-assessee-received-cash-payment-no-addition-can-be-made-merely-on-presumption-and/katrina-kaif-68-cash-credits/
No comments:
Post a Comment