New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1543 - ITAT AMRITSAR

2015 (12) TMI 1543 - ITAT AMRITSAR - TMI - Unexplained investment u/s 69 or unexplained credit u/s 68 - AO invoked the section 68, made an addition qua unexplained cash credit - whether the ld. CIT(A) has been correct in converting this charge of “unexplained cash credit” u/s 68 of the Act to that of “unexplained investment” u/s 69 of the Act - Held that:- It is not a case of typographical or a mere wrong mention of the Section. However, not able to agree with this observation of the ld. CIT(A). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd source of cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- could not be satisfactorily explained with credible or cogent evidence and hence the section of deemed income created by section 69 comes into operation. - Section 69 of the Act talks of clauses where the assessee had made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of investments or the explanation offered by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellant : Sh. P.N.Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. Kanchan Garg, DR ORDER This is the assessee s appeal for the assessment year 2001-12, against the order dated 13.01.2015, passed by the ld. CIT(A), Bathinda. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal of the appellant when the appellant has fully explained the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/-. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the ground of the appellant where the I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the reasons that there were cash deposits exceeding the threshold limit into his savings bank accounts with OBC, Bucho, Central Bank of India, and State Bank of Patiala. The AO called for the details of source of cash deposits in the aforesaid accounts pursuant to which a cash flow statement was furnished. From the said cash flow, the AO found that there was a credit balance of only ₹ 6,63,082/- as on 11.08.2010 and that the source of subsequent cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned in the subsequent financial year as per oral Panchayati Rajinama since registration deed could not be executed. The AO further found that the pronote referred to earlier was not for purchase or sale of land but was for depositing admission fee of the daughter of the assessee. The submissions of the assessee before the AO was thus found to be completely contradictory. However, the assessee was again asked to explain the credit worthiness of Sh.Gurbinder Singh who was purported to have given .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the transactions contained in this account. The AO tested this explanation also and found that prior to the purported advance by Sh. Gurbinder Singh to the assessee, the account had only a petty balance of ₹ 2916/- only. With these facts in the possession of the AO, it was held by him that the assessee had no satisfactory explanation for the impugned cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the provisions of section 69 of the Act while holding that the provisions of section 68 of the Act had been wrongly applied by the AO and that the mistake was curable under section 69B of the Act. He has sought to place reliance on the follows case laws: i) Shanta Devi vs. CIT, 171 ITR 532 (P&H) ii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi, 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong relia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntended that there is no denying that the AO had committed a mistake by invoking the provisions of section 68 but has correctly taken note of by the ld. CIT(A). This is an irregularity which gets immunity by the provisions of section 292B of the Act. 6. In this regard, the facts are not disputed. The question is that when, AO has been held to be wrongly applied the provisions of section 69, whether the addition can be sustained by invoking, instead, the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act to that of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) termed it as a mere irregularity curable under the provisions of section 292B of the Act. It is not a case of typographical or a mere wrong mention of the Section. However, I am not able to agree with this observation of the ld. CIT(A). Section 292B of the Act and notification of the particular provisions of the Act to make certain addition is none than the jurisdictional mat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version