Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 95 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained money - Held that:- Assessee reiterates his stand adopted throughout that the impugned cash deposits of ₹ 15.34lacs represent sale price of the gold and diamond jewellery items as inherited from his late father by way of a will. He stresses the point that his father had declared the very jewellery item in wealth tax return as well. We find no force in this argument as the instant plea admittedly does not raise an issue of jewellery items in question since we are concerned with assessee’s source of cash deposits only. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed a single detail at all qua the so called purchasers of jwellery in question. Learned Departmental Representative seeks to invite our attention to the fact that the assessee’s bank account has seen various cash deposits instances not containing the relevant details even relevant to a single occasion. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s conclusion hereinabove in restricting the impugned addition of unexplained money from ₹ 24,08,001/- to ₹ 15.34 lacs. - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained investment addition - Held that:- The assessee has carried out his share transactions through M/s. Sushil Finance Securities Pvt. Ltd. And also that he has sold his investment and credited the same to his ledger account directly. The Revenue further fails to dispute the fact that the assessee has made cheque payments from his co-operative bank account whose deposits stood added forming subject matter of adjudication in his cross appeal decided hereinabove. It can thus be concluded that the assessee’s cash deposits/credits added u/s.68 of the Act as well as the opening balance of the said account form source of his impugned investments. We accordingly do not see any reason to interfere in the CIT(A)’s conclusion deleting the impugned addition on account of Revenue’s failure to rebut the same - Decided in favour of assessee
|