Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 460 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the creditors - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given a clear-cut findings that the AO did not examine the transaction, in question, independently rather solely relied upon the report of the Investigation Wing in making the impugned addition, whereas, the assessee has duly discharged its primary onus by furnishing the relevant details and evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. A perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly discussed the facts of the case and relied upon various decisions of higher courts.Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Addition u/s 69C - payments made by the assessee company to two people for land development business in respect of property - only contention raised by the Assessing Officer was that the aforesaid amounts were not accounted in the books of account of the appellant although these were debited from the bank account of the appellant - CIT-A deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A), has rightly held that since the Assessing Officer himself has noted that the amount was debited from the bank account of the assessee itself, therefore, there was no doubt regarding the source of the said expenditure. Therefore, even if the assessee has not claimed the said expenditure in its books of account that itself cannot be the reason for further disallowance of the said expenditure. The addition u/s 69C of the Act could have been made only if the assessee could not have established the source of the expenditure. However, in this case, it was agreed by the Assessing Officer that the said amount was debited from the bank account of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Decided against revenue.
|