Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 261 - HC - Income TaxNon- genuine gifts - ITAT holding that the addition made by AO on account of non- genuine gifts was covered by the addition confirmed on account of peak of unexplained credits in various bank accounts - Held that:- Admittedly, ₹ 4,92,325 on account of non-genuine gifts was already included in the addition of ₹ 9,75,333 made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted this addition. - Decided against revenue. Benefit of past savings of ₹ 4 lakhs granted to the appellant, the Assessing Officer himself held that jewellery belongs to the appellant and was, therefore, required to apportion some amount towards investment or savings. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly granted the benefit of ₹ 4 lakhs as past savings. The plea with respect to shridhan is similarly unfounded as the benefit has been granted on account of shridhan of the assessee's wife, Smt. Surbhi Kohli. The benefit granted to Suresh Kumar Kohli, father of the assessee, pertains to the latter's wife, i.e., mother of the appellant and then also in the assessment pertaining to Suresh Kumar Kohli.- Decided against revenue. Unexplained jewellery found in locker No. 72 - Held that:- After appraisal of the evidence adduced before the Assessing Officer, namely, an affidavit by Harbans Lal and his statement recorded before the Assessing Officer, it was held as a matter of fact that the jewellery does not belong to the assessee. We are not inclined and nor can we while exercising the jurisdiction as a second appellate court reappraise evidence much less the statement made by Harbans Lal, etc., till such time as consideration of this evidence is perverse or arbitrary. The Tribunal has, after appraising the affidavit and the statements, recorded a plausible finding. Counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out any misreading of evidence or perversity in the process of reasoning as would enable us to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue.
|