9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. This appeal is filed by the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee had argued the following revised question:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in holding that proviso to section 69C was applicable to the present case, without appreciating that Rs. 1,75,00,372/- was not claimed as a deduction during the year but said amount was debited to work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm's additional income. This statement was never retracted. The A.O. therefore, passed the order of assessment in which the said sum of Rs. 1.75 Crores was added to the income of of assessee in terms of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act). The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement, while dismissing assessee's appeal, confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that arises is whether in the facts of the present case section 69C of the Act was applicable. As is well known, under section 69C of the Act, where any expenditure incurred by the assessee to which he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure, then, such expenditure would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year in question. In the present case, the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that the assessee having taken such an amount on the credit side of the P & L Account, had made corresponding entry on the debit side of the P & L Account claiming the said sum of Rs. 1.75 Crores by way of expenses for the work in progress. Thus, the credit entry was effectively neutralised by corresponding entry on the debit side. This is not, therefore, a case of double taxation. 6] Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
