No additions u/s 68 if assessee not connected to MoU found during search: HC
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- Last Updated on 25 January, 2023
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manmohan & Ms Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
- Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant.
- Yed Jain, Nischay Kantoor & Ms Richa Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. A search operation was carried out on the premises of the assessee. During the search proceedings, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for investment in property between two parties was found in which one party made a payment of Rs. 20 crores in cash.
AO summoned the parties to MOU wherein one party admitted in his statement that he had signed the seized MOU at the direction of the assessee in exchange for commission income. However later, he changed his statement and stated that a cash transaction of Rs. 20 crores occurred at the assessee’s office in the presence of the assessee, and the cash was given to the parties in this office.
Relying upon the second statement, the Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 20 crores to the income of the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly.
On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by AO but subsequently deleted them by the Delhi Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal to Delhi High Court was filed.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the MOU was recovered from the premises of the assessee but as per the terms of the MOU, the assessee was not a party or a witness to the transaction. Also, no cash was found or seized during the search operation. Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not even remotely connected to MoU.
Further, the second statement changed by the party to the transaction was not corroborated by any evidence. Thus, the subsequent statement cannot be considered reliable. Thus, AO committed an error in framing the opinion.
Accordingly, there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal deleting addition and the same was to be upheld.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Trilok Chand Choudhary v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 5871 (Delhi) of 2017, dated 20-9-2018] (para 11) affirmed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Ram Kumar Aggarwal v. Thawar Das  7 SCC 303 (para 11).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied