Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 636 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained/undisclosed payment - Held that:- In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Revenue Authorities could unearth any evidence/tangible material against the assessee, either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings, to show that the assessee has paid the money of ₹ 18 lakhs to Ms. Zahira Sheikh. It is only the version of DVD which is the basis for making the addition in question, on which the enquiry officer gave his finding that there was no acceptable material to establish that the assessee had paid money to Ms. Zahira Sheikh. In these facts and circumstances, the addition of ₹ 18 lakhs, claimed to be paid by the assessee to Ms. Zahira Sheikh, as unexplained/undisclosed payment is not justified and same is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- In appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) observed that six out of nine creditors, i.e., Shri Dipak Patel, Shri Sudeep Shrivastav, Shri Naresh Shrivastav, Shri Ramesh Shrivastav, Shri Jagdishbhai Patel and Shri Vivek Shrivastav have filed returns of income and also have PAN and have also filed the confirmation letters. In the case of Shri Anil Kale, it was claimed that he was doing electrical repair work and his income was below taxable limit; and that the loan was advanced out of his savings. In the case of Smt. Santaben Patel, there was a balance of more than ₹ 7 lakhs in her bank account before advancement of loan and she had also stated that the amount was out of savings of 7-8 years out of her agricultural income; however, according to CIT(A), no proof of any agricultural activity such as 7/12 records or sale receipts etc. could be produced to establish the credit worthiness. The CIT(A) also noted that Shri Jayendra Zala could not appear before the Assessing Officer and no details such as confirmation or his creditworthiness could be filed. The CIT(A) also held that the payment received by account payee cheque by itself does not fulfill the requirement of section 68 of the Act. In this background, the CIT(A) rightly held that the creditworthiness was not established in respect of loans of ₹ 3,19,500/- in respect of Mrs. Santaben Patel and Shri Jayendra Zala and accordingly confirmed this addition. These reasoned findings of the CIT(A) do not require any interference from our side; we uphold the same. - Decided against assessee.
|