TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 69C. Since the amount of ₹ 10,32,200/- had not been expended by the assessee but was merely routed through the assessee, the question of debiting such amount to the profit and loss account did not arise. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference. - Decided against revenue - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1390 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : MRS MAUNA M BHATT (174) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. Since the asessee had not debited the same, it was considered as deemed income of the assessee and the addition of ₹ 22,84,900/- was made. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by an order dated 2.5.2016 partly allowed the appeal holding that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified but, during the year under consideration, only ₹ 10,32,200/- was paid and ₹ 14,19,450/- was the opening balance. He accordingly confirmed addition of ₹ 10,32,200/- and deleted addition of ₹ 14,19,450/-. 5. The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which deleted the remaining addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly deleted the addition. 8. Thus, the facts as emerging from the record reveal that the payment of ₹ 10,32,200/- made to Shri Abhay Vasavada was by the Insurance Company towards doctor s fees and such amount was merely routed through the assessee. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly justified in holding that such amount was not in the nature of unexplained expenditure so as to attract the provisions of section 69C of the Act. Since the amount of ₹ 10,32,200/- had not been expended by the assessee but was merely routed through the assessee, the question of debiting such amount to the profit and loss account did not arise. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
