2015 (9) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erse on the facts and erroneous in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleting the addition of capital gains of Rs. 25,00,000/- received on surrender of tenancy right under section 55(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, is perverse on facts and erroneous in law?" This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, (for short "the Act") at the instance of the Revenue is directed against an order dated 8th October, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "D" Bench, Kolkata in Income Tax Appeal bearing IT (SS) A. No.33/Kol/2000 for the block assessment period from 1st April, 1987 to 12th December, 1997 whereby the appeal filed by the department was d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) on, inter alia, two grounds,- a) with regard to the addition of Rs. 8,45,247 as unexplained investment of K.K.Mahipal and b) with regard to the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as capital gain being the amount received from the surrender of tenancy to the landlord, as noted. The CIT(A) deleted the said two additions which were confirmed by the Tribunal. The Revenue being aggrieved by the said deletions have preferred the instant appeal. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 8,45,247 merely on the basis of papers seized from the possession of K.K.Mahipal, the assessee's brother. Save and exce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the section would lead us to a conclusion that a mere statement cannot be a material or information since it has to relate to some evidence. Unless it is relatable to some evidence, a mere statement cannot be the basis for computation. As found by the Tribunal, in view of section 158BB in the absence of any corroborative evidence the addition cannot be made on the basis of presumption as correctly contended by Mr.Banerjee, the learned advocate for the respondent. The judgement in Dinesh B.Parikh v. Commissioner of Income-tax : (2012) 347 ITR 420 (Cal) relied on by Mr. Agarwal is distinguishable on facts as therein the appellant's statement was corroborated by the paper seized which is lacking in the case in hand. The judgement in CIT ....