Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1087 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of opening cash balance - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Entry relating to this opening balance was not appearing in the books of account in the assessment year under consideration as this is earlier year’s carry forward balance. As held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Parameshwar Bhora, [2007 (1) TMI 105 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ] amount which was credited in books of account of the assessee in the preceding year cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit or unexplained investment under s. 68/69 in the relevant assessment year. In the present case, since the opening balance of cash is only carried forward entry and it is not appearing in the financial year under consideration, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the said case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of opening cash balance. - Decided against revenue Addition on amount received out of the withdrawal of his wife Smt. Padmavathi from her business - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The CIT(A) observed that as a principle the department has accepted the investment and availability of fund belonging to appellant’s wife and therefore, the AO should have accepted the claim of the assessee basing on documentary evidence. It is also found that the AO had not caused any enquiry to ascertain the existence of the concern owned by appellant’s wife. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the addition received by the assessee from his wife. - Decided against revenue Addition made based on the scribbling found in the seized material - unaccounted payments made by the assessee for investment in lands - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In this case, the addition was made by the AO based on the loose paper and the same, in our view, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence. As held by the CIT(A) in the impugned order “except relying on the notings in the loose slips, no attempt has been made to corroborate the notings with independent evidence. The parties to the transaction particularly the vendor has not examined. In every transaction there is a circle concerning two parties. It is not known whether the vendor has disclosed the consideration as noted in the diary. Therefore, merely on the basis of presumption and some uncorroborated notings additions cannot be made.” In our opinion, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is justified and no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against revenue
|