9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the addition of unexplained deposits in a joint savings bank account can be made to the income of the assessee? 2. Whether the addition of unexplained investment in the purchase of US dollars can be made to the income of the assessee? Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue pertains to the addition of deposits made in a joint savings account held by the assessee and another individual. The Revenue contended that the other individual was a benamidar, and thus the deposits should be considered as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer added the deposits and accrued interest to the income of the assessee. However, the Tribunal, in a similar case, upheld the decision that the deposits cannot be added to the income of the assessee. The Court, following the previous decision, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the deposits should not be considered as income. Issue 2: The second issue involves the addition of an unexplained investment in the purchase of US dollars to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer added the amount based on certain diary entries and withdrawal transactions. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the addition, citing provisions of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991. The Act provided immunity for certain foreign remittances, which covered the US dollar purchase in this case. The documents relied upon were not in possession of the assessee, and the Enforcement Directorate confirmed the matter was closed under the Immunity Scheme, 1991. The Court upheld the deletion of the addition, emphasizing that trying to find the source of foreign exchange remittance would violate the Act and be impermissible. Therefore, the second issue was also decided in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their respective costs.
|
