Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 396 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted cash deposits in Bank on various dates - addition u/s 68 deleted by CIT(A) - Held that:- The impugned cash deposits have been made out of the funds withdrawn in the preceding years and hence, we are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) that assessee’s stand on this issue has been proved by positive evidences. Per contra, the AO has not brought out any material or evidence in spite of search operation at the residential premises of the assessee to dismiss assessee’s claim/stand that the assessee actually has such funds available at the time of subsequent cash deposits. We are also inclined to hold that the CIT(A) was quite justified in reaching to a conclusion that the assessee has discharged its onus incumbent upon him u/s 68 of the Act by submitting supportive and reliable evidence and explanation viz. same bank pass book etc. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 of the Act was not sustainable. - Decided against revenue. Addition on figures scribbled on loose slips, found and seized during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- the substantive addition was made in the hands of Smt. Avinash Monga and in the assessee’s case, there was merely a protective addition. We further note that the CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, after detailed deliberations found that the substantive addition is not sustainable and both the additions of ₹ 12,72,707/- and ₹ 91,870 except addition to the extent of ₹ 10,000 were deleted. We are also in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that whatever undisclosed income had to be taxed based on these loose papers, has been taxed in the hands of assessee’s wife Smt. Avinash Monga substantively and as the rest of substantive addition has been deleted, then there is no ground to uphold the protective addition in the hands of present assessee Shri Suresh Monga. Finally, under above noted facts and circumstances, we reach to a logical conclusion that the CIT(A) was right in granting relief for the assessee and deleting the protective addition. - Decided against revenue.
|