Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 320 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- On perusal of the assessee's ICICI Bank statement of the relevant period reveals that he has made all payments to the contractor by account payee cheques by utilizing the funds deposited in his account by his brother. Thus, there is a complete and clear nexus between the payments made by the assessee to the contractor on the one hand; and the payments received by the assessee from his brother on the other in the present case. The necessity of the funds in the present case, has also been proved beyond any doubt. The identity of his brother, Shri Hari Om Singhal is also, beyond any doubt, since he himself is a tax payer. The ld CIT(A) notes that genuineness of the arrangement cannot be reasonably questioned, as the same is between 2 real brothers, who belong to the same family. The ld CIT(A) appreciates the desire of the elder brother to help his younger brother, particularly, when the funds were needed for a genuine purpose, so according to him it cannot be reasonably questioned. We find that Ld. CTI(A) relied on the ratio of cases Anand Ram Raitani Vs.CIT (1996 (8) TMI 95 - GAUHATI High Court) and CIT, Poona Vs. Bhai Chand H. Gandhi (Born) [1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY High Court] for concluding that since books of accounts are not maintained by the assessee, there is no legal scope to invoke provisions of Section 68 and as such, addition made on such premise was rightly deleted. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In our view, the same does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same. - Decided against revenue.
|