Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 308 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s 69A - unexplained bank account - peak credit - Held that:- No doubt, the verification is required to be done in connection with the assessing of the income of joint account to the tune of ₹ 19,85,100/- with the Jayesh K Vora. In this regard, we observed that the necessary verification is required to be done at the end of AO to justify the claim if, any raised by the assessee whether this income has been assessed at the end of her husband Jayesh K Vora or not. If, this amount has been assessed with the Jayesh K Vora, in the said circumstances, the said amount is not liable to be added with the income of the assessee. We direct accordingly. The other contention of the assessee is that he was having the SBI Account No.706 in which there was a deposit and withdrawal and the total deposit up to the year ended on 31.03.20111 was amounting of ₹ 22,08,800/-. The copy of the said account is lies at page 14 to 15 of the paper book in which there are number of withdrawal and deposit and the total deposit was to the tune of ₹ 22,85,800/-. The big amount of deposit is to the tune of ₹ 15,67,800/-. We are of the view that the peak amount is liable to be added to the income of the assessee specifically in the circumstances when there is a number of withdrawal and deposit. Since, we are restoring the matters controversy before the AO therefore, the AO is directed to assess the income of the assessee in view of the observation made above we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and resorted the matter to the file of the AO for further adjudication Addition on account of unsecured loan credit u/s 68- confirmation on source of transaction - Held that:- The loan creditor has a debit balance of ₹ 1,54,118/-. Thus instead of declaring Shri Jayesh K Vora as sundry debtor for ₹ 1,54,118/, the assessee has declared him as a unsecured loan creditor for ₹ 13,42,83.51/-. This difference to the tune of ₹ 14,96,950/- was assessed as unexplained undoubtedly, this addition was not made by the AO. We are of the view that the said loan transactions are required to be examined at the end of the AO by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While raising the addition by the CIT(A) no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee, therefore we are of the view that an opportunity being heard is required to be given to the assessee before the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of ₹ 14,96,650/- in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to verify the said transaction. Decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
|