Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 441 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of peak credit/investment - whether the addition is duly covered in the declaration and other addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and this sustaining amounts to taxing the same amount twice? - Held that:- Since nothing has been brought before the lower authorities as well as before us that the statement given during the course of search was on wrong assumption of facts or that the statement given during the course of search is untrue or false, therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that addition of the same will amount to double taxation. However, as already mentioned earlier, the AO himself has noted in para 4.8 of his order that debtors to extent of ₹ 10,76,176/- relates to the unaccounted business as evidenced by Bundle No.4, therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief of only ₹ 10,76,176/- out of the addition of ₹ 28 lakhs made by the AO on the basis of the admission of the assessee during the course of search being peak investment in unrecorded transactions in purchases and sales. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Addition of ₹ 1 lakh on adhoc basis out of various expenses as were not fully verifiable with supporting vouchers - Held that:- No infirmity in the above disallowance since the assessee himself by agreeing for addition of ₹ 1 lakh prevented the AO from making further enquiries. Therefore, the CIT(A) was fully justified in not accepting the various additional evidences in the form of bills and vouchers. Merely because books of accounts are duly audited u/s.44AB, the same, in our opinion, is not sufficient to delete the addition especially when the AO had pointed out that the expenses are not supported by proper vouchers and the assessee himself has agreed for addition of ₹ 1 lakh and prevented the AO from making further enquiries. Under these circumstances the order of the CIT(A) is upheld - Decided against assessee.
|