| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 4897 (Jod-Trib) : (2021) 092 ITR (Trib) 0505 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 153B(1)(b) Section 144A Section 154
Amount seized from assessee at the Delhi Air Port belonged to the Lux Industries Limited and the real owner should have been taxed and not representative thereof as assessee was only a representative of the Lux company. Therefore, addition made in assessee's hands was deleted.
|
Search and seizure - Addition to income - Amount seized not belonging to assessee - Assessee being only a representative
Assessee was commission agent of M/s. Lux Industries Ltd., Kolkata. Search and seizure operation was carried out on 19-4-2011 at New Delhi Airport, during search, an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs were found and seized from assessee. On being asked, assessee stated that amount, seized did not belong to assessee but belonged to the company M/s. Lux Industries Limited, Kolkata. AO rejected this and made addition of the amount concerned in assessee's hands.Held: Assessee in his statement recorded under section 132(4) specifically stated that amount seized from him at the Air Port belonged to Lux Industries Limited. Statement of Director of said company namely, Ashok Kumar Todi was also recorded, in which he had specifically admitted that amount seized pertained to sale proceeds of a particular lot of T-shirts of Kolkata Knight Riders sold in Delhi and since goods originally belonged to Kolkata and there was requirement of cash in Kolkata, therefore, assessee was directed to bring the cash to Kolkata. As far as in the affidavit of Ashok Todi, Director of Lux Industries Limited was concerned, in the said affidavit, it was accepted that money belonged to the company and assessee was only courier of money and following the instruction of the company bringing money from Delhi to Kolkata on behalf of the company. In support of this fact, assessee submitted copy of air ticket which was sent by Kolkata officer for coming to Kolkata. In view of all this, amount seized from assessee at the Delhi Air Port belonged to the Lux Industries Limited and the real owner should have been taxed, and not representative thereof as assessee was only a representative of the Lux company. Therefore, addition made in assessee's hands was deleted.
Relied:Mehta Parikh & Company v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) : 1956 TaxPub(DT) 171 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi v. ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh-Trib), ITO v. Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh-Trib), Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1957 (Raj-HC) , Shrikumar v. ITO (1990) 36 TTJ 538 (Jp-Trib) : 1990 TaxPub(DT) 36 (Jp-Trib), Smt. Savitri Devi v. ITO (1985) 11 ITD 422 (Delhi) : 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0780 (Del-Trib) , CTO v. Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur (1994) 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO v. Vardhaman Industries (2006) 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh-Trib) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 302 (Jod-Trib), ACTO v. Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limited v. State of MP (1966) 60 ITR 41 (SC) : 1966 TaxPub(DT) 0041 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal v. ACIT (2008) 208 CTR 159 (Raj) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 361 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 323 (SC) and UOI v. Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|