Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 502 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained investment - Held that:- More particularly when the assessee discharged its onus by submitting and producing necessary material in support of his case that the aforesaid transactions belongs to one one Rakesh Panchal HUF and thereafter onus was shifted upon the A.O. to hold necessary inquiry with respect to the said alleged transactions and/or the amount belongs to Rakesh Panchal HUF, which the A.O. failed to discharged, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in deleting such addition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained expenditure under section 69C - Held that:- From the material on record and the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal, it appears that there was no evidence whatsoever collected by the A.O. that the assessee incurred expenditure towards discounting of the cheques. It was the specific case on behalf of the assessee that as the assessee did not incur any expenditure towards discounting of the cheques, thereafter it was for the A.O. to collect evidence showing that in fact, the assessee incurred expenditure. Once it was the case on behalf of the asseessee that it had not incurred any expenditure, in that case, thereafter onus is upon the A.O. to disprove the same by collecting material evidence, which in the present case, A.O. failed. Under the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure as well as the learned tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee
|