9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Income TaxAssessee failed to confirm that advance received by him was received towards advance breeding charges detailed not furnished by assessee held that credit balance appearing in the accounts of the Assessee, does not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition under Section 68 - no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the CIT(A)
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs.15 lacs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the issue of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting an addition of Rs.15 lacs made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee had shown an advance of Rs.15 lacs from a party, which was questioned by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee failed to provide confirmation from the party, leading to the addition under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessee then appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the CIT(A). The crux of the matter lies in Section 68 of the Act, which deals with cash credits found in an assessee's books without satisfactory explanation. The Revenue contended that the Assessee's failure to provide confirmation justified the addition. However, the CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee. The CIT(A) reasoned that the credit balance of Rs.15 lacs had been reflected in the Assessee's accounts for several years, not just the year under consideration, and was related to advances against breeding stallions in previous assessment years. Therefore, it was not a fresh credit entry for the year in question, making the addition under Section 68 unjustified. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the factual finding that the credit balance did not pertain to the relevant year and had been previously recorded and accounted for. Consequently, the Tribunal's order did not raise any substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in cases of unexplained cash credits, emphasizing the importance of factual findings and past accounting records in determining the validity of such additions. The decision underscores the need for a satisfactory explanation for cash credits and highlights the significance of consistent accounting practices in assessing income tax liabilities.
|
