Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 339 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The acceptance of the sum being received from the assessee, i.e., in the case of Shyam Puri (HUF), cannot operate to prejudice the assessee as the assessee is not a party to those proceedings. True, the assesssee cannot take a different stand in her case, and the principle of approbate and reprobate, applicable to tax proceedings, apply, so that the receipt by the assessee is admitted. Where so, the assessee’s explanation would in that case have to be accepted in full, i.e., of it being the sale proceed by her sons’ shop. Her explanation cannot be accepted in part. In fact, matters are to be decided on the basis of evidence. It is for such reasons, that it is oft-stated by the higher courts of law that the substantive and protective assessments are heard and decided together by the appellate authorities. The assessment in case of Shyam Puri (HUF) has become conclusive inasmuch as it is not pending in further appeal. No case for bringing the sum of ₹ 16 lacs in the assessee’s hands is made out. Per contra, the assessee cannot be allowed capital loss of ₹ 2.52 lacs, i.e., as claimed. Decide accordingly. Addition on account of credit entries in the assessee’s bank account with PNB, Purani Mandi, Jammu - assessee, who claims the same to be dividend or interest from shares or debentures, exempt u/s. 10(34D), or, alternatively, maturity proceeds of UTI-MIP(IV), could not substantiate either with any document, resulting in the same being assessed as unexplained credit in her bank account, i.e., u/s. 69A, the assessee being admittedly in receipt of money to that extent, so that the onus to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the same – the said bank deposits, was on her - HELD THAT:- The bank account is not on record. The impugned deposits are in a bank account maintained at Jammu, where the assessee resides for the past several years now. There is nothing to show that the credits are from, as stated, UTI, in which case the assessee definitely has a case in-as-much as the same could only be a capital receipt (on redemption), or dividend, etc. There is no improvement in the assessee’s case even before me, so that I am constrained not to interfere; the position of law, as aforestated, being amply clear.
|