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 696 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- assessee filed inundated evidence in support of the genuineness of the transaction. The AO chose to ignore the same without showing how it was wrong and was needlessly swayed by the mere fact the T.S. Motors had not separately demonstrated this sum in its balance sheet. The assessee cannot be faulted if T.S. Motors clubbed such advance of Rs.15 lac with other advances instead of showing it separately. It was incumbent upon the AO to conduct inquiry and verify the correctness of the documents with M.S. Motors, if he was not ready to accept them as correct. Nothing adverse has been brought on record in this regard. In the given circumstances, we are unable to find any flaw in the impugned order in deleting this addition on the basis of the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction - Decided against the revenue. Unexplained investment - Held that:- it is patent that the difference in the cost of construction between the assessee and DVO for the current year stands only at Rs.2.05 lac. Such difference constitutes and minuscule 3%. As against the assessee's declared investment at Rs.1.22 crore over the period, the DVO has estimated cost of construction at Rs.1.25 crore. It is crystal clear that the year-wise figures as declared by the assessee and as estimated by the DVO are almost in the same vicinity. The difference between two values is minimal. After all, estimate is an estimate and cannot take the place of actual. Such a meager difference does not require any addition. The exercise embarked upon by the AO in treating 80% of the total investment over the years as having been made in the year under consideration is whimsical and capricious devoid of any legally sustainable reasons - Decided against Revenue.
|