Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 777 - ITAT AHMEDABADAddition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act – Held that:- Cost of vehicles bearing Regn. No. GJ-21T-9565 and GJ-21-T-953, which were sold during the year have been properly recorded in the books of the appellant in the year of its purchase and has been reflected in the books of accounts as well as computation of WDV in depreciation working as well as computation of income. Based on the factual matrix and evidences on record it can be inferred that typographical error made by the accountant can in no way be starched to imagine and hold that unexplained investment in vehicles has been made by the appellant. In order to charge unexplained investment as income, the burden is upon the Revenue to conclusively establish by evidence or material the fact of investment and in the instant case no such investment has been established by the AO. Section 69 does not empower the AO to assess the income merely on the basis of suspicion. Allowance for expenditure made for improvement in vehicle of Rs. 373080/- - Held that:- On verification of the depreciation chart attached with the return of income, it is revealed that the assessee has firstly added the capital expenditure in the written down value of the vehicles and then she deducted the sale consideration form it. In this way, it is absolutely clear that the assessee has decreased the value of capital gain. Further it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has failed to produce any documentary proofs in regard of capital expenditure made towards the vehicles. In the absence of any documentary evidence, how can it is justified that the assessee has made capital expense – Decided against the Assessee.
|