Priyanka Chopra vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- 25 Jan 2018
1- The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submission made by the assessee during the assessment stage and has made the addition arbitrarily. He held that no documentary evidence in this regard has found. He held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of the loose papers. Hence, he held that the assessee’s explanation is acceptable in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). Accordingly, he deleted the addition.
2- We find that it is clear that the assessee has received watch worth of Rs.40 lacs from the same company and in the same agreement in which she has undertaken advertisements and promotional activities and has received remuneration of Rs.1.4 crores. Hence, the addition as perquisite u/s. 28(4) has no infirmity. Furthermore, the statement of the assessee that the actual value of the watch is much less has rightly been rejected by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no corroboratory evidence in this regard has been produced. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard. Hence, we uphold the same
3- In this regard, the assessee has also raised an additional ground wherein it is urged that addition is not based upon any incriminating material. On the same reasoning, as the previous ground adjudicated by us wherein we have admitted the additional ground and remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we similarly admit this ground. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the ratio arising out of the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra).
For reading full text of the case please refer link - http://itatonline.org/archives/priyanka-chopra-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-s-68-if-an-admission-of-undisclosed-income-is-made-by-the-assessee-after-reference-to-the-material-found-during-search-and-seizure-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-adm/priyanka-chopra-undisclosed-income/
Some of the important pointers of the case for easy reference:
1- The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submission made by the assessee during the assessment stage and has made the addition arbitrarily. He held that no documentary evidence in this regard has found. He held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of the loose papers. Hence, he held that the assessee’s explanation is acceptable in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). Accordingly, he deleted the addition.
2- We find that it is clear that the assessee has received watch worth of Rs.40 lacs from the same company and in the same agreement in which she has undertaken advertisements and promotional activities and has received remuneration of Rs.1.4 crores. Hence, the addition as perquisite u/s. 28(4) has no infirmity. Furthermore, the statement of the assessee that the actual value of the watch is much less has rightly been rejected by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no corroboratory evidence in this regard has been produced. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard. Hence, we uphold the same
3- In this regard, the assessee has also raised an additional ground wherein it is urged that addition is not based upon any incriminating material. On the same reasoning, as the previous ground adjudicated by us wherein we have admitted the additional ground and remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we similarly admit this ground. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the ratio arising out of the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra).
For reading full text of the case please refer link - http://itatonline.org/archives/priyanka-chopra-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-s-68-if-an-admission-of-undisclosed-income-is-made-by-the-assessee-after-reference-to-the-material-found-during-search-and-seizure-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-adm/priyanka-chopra-undisclosed-income/
No comments:
Post a Comment