While hearing the case of actress Priyanka Chopra Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the addition of cash payment of Rs. 50 Lakhs for the purchase of a studio since the actress admitted the payment before the department.
After the search proceedings conducted in the premises of the assessee, the department found that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was declared as undisclosed income for cash payment for the purchase of Studio Aesthetique and also various incriminating material was found also.
Before the AO Smt. Madhu Chopra, mother of the assessee stated that no cash payment was made for purchase of Studio Aesthetique, except the payment made by a cheque of Rs.3.50 crores
However, the AO was not convinced and accordingly On the basis of the proof documents he made an addition of the said amount to the total income of the assessee.
On appeal, CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by deleting the addition. He held that no documentary evidence in this regard has found, therefore no addition can be made solely on the basis of the loose papers. Further, he observed that assessee’s explanation is acceptable in light of the decision of the apex court in a previous case.
Aggrieved by the order of the authority, revenue approached the tribunal on appeal.
After analyzing the material facts in deep, tribunal bench comprising of Judicial Member Sandeep Gosain and Accountant Member Shamim Yahya rejected the findings of the CIT (A) and observed that the material obtained by the Revenue during search and seizure, it was only with reference to the search and seizure material that mother of the assessee gave a specific amount to various heads wherein the undisclosed income had been utilized. The bench also noted that on the other hand, the assessee had also separately accepted the same. Hence, it cannot be said that this addition is not based upon any incriminating material found or searched.
The division bench further observed that the statement of the mother of the assessee is inconsistent and the decision on a previous case held by the apex court which is mentioned by the CIT(A) would not relevant to the present case. Therefore, the bench confirmed the addition made by the AO while concluding the issue.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
