Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2011 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 614 - HC - Income TaxJewellery and unexplained cash - before CIT(A) the assessee furnished evidence for the first time to explain the jewellery as well as cash. His submission was that jewellery was belonging to the wife of the assessee which was duly disclosed in the income-tax return filed by the wife of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90. In support thereof, the assessment order of the income-tax return filed by the wife of the assessee was produced. - Therefore, even in order to advance the cause of justice, this evidence was admitted, it cannot be said that no prejudice is caused to the revenue. - Decided against the revenue. Explained investment in shares and debentures - insofar as the assessee is concerned, he had explained the source and his explanation was accepted, viz., shares and securities found from the residence in the form of Shri Mitesh Patel and Smt. Jyotikaben Patel. Once this aspect is accepted, there could not be any addition in the income of the assessee. If further investigation was required for the aforesaid correlation, i.e., in case of Shri Mitesh Patel and Smt. Jyotikaben Patel, that aspect could not have been remitted back to the Assessing Officer for assessment while considering the assessment of the assessee. Peak credit - The Assessing Officer had made this addition on the basis of the diary seized from the premises of the assessee. While computing the peak credit, the Assessing Officer had arrived at an addition of Rs. 5,31,170 as being the excess outgo as per the diary. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 7,34,480 to the peak credit as appearing on 24-11-1995. The Tribunal had sustained the addition of Rs. 7,34,480, but deleted the addition of Rs. 5,31,170 on the ground that the addition of both the excess outgo as peak credits cannot be sustained in view of the fact that when computation of peak credit, the outgo would also be considered in the peak credit calculated on the continuous inflow and outflow of the funds, only once addition is called for. On this basis, higher of the two is sustained. This approach of the Tribunal is again without blemish find that no question of law arises, these appeals are accordingly dismissed.
|