TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, JJ. For Appellant : Suyash Agrawal For Respondent : Ashish Agarwal,C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal of the assessee relates to the Assessment Year 2005-06. The assesee had filed return of the relevant year showing her income of ₹ 98,998/-. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 5.12.2007 under Section 144(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the assessee seeking her explanation as to why the amount of ₹ 10,07,749/- which she had invested in purchasing a property be not added to her income under Section 68 of 'the Act'. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; which provides for the addition of some credit shown in the books of accounts of the assessee for which no satisfactory explanation is furnished to be added in the income of the assessee. In contrast to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, Section 69 of the Act provides for the addition of unexplained investments which are not recorded in the books of accounts and where the explanation about the nature of the source of investment is not found to be satisfactory. Under Section 69 of the Act, the assessee is only required to furnish explanation with regard to the source of investment failing which such investment is liable to be added to the income of the assessee. The assessee in response to the notice issued for making addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inference against the assessee for not disclosing the source of the source of the investment in his hands. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had followed above principle vide its decision dated 5.9.2017 rendered in I.T. Appeal No.68 of 2005 (Rajendra Prasad Shukla Proprietor M/s Shukla AApurti Kendra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal decision as stated above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the explanation regarding the investment made by her in the property inasmuch as the authorities could not have gone into the question of source of the source and that too by converting the proceedings regarding addition u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
