9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the addition of an unexplained deposit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act was correctly deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal? 2. Whether the failure of the assessee to produce the creditor, Smt. Mamta Devi, should lead to an adverse inference against the assessee? Analysis: 1. The dispute in this case pertains to the assessment year 1990-91, where the assessee disclosed a cash credit of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of his wife, Smt. Mamta Devi. The assessing authority treated this cash credit as unexplained income when the assessee failed to produce Smt. Mamta Devi for verification. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, noting that Smt. Mamta Devi was regularly assessed by the department for her income and wealth, with her returns being accepted by the revenue. The Tribunal found the deposit to be genuine based on the established identity and capacity of the creditor. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the deposit was legitimate as Smt. Mamta Devi had the financial capacity to provide the deposit, having been assessed under both the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of the unexplained deposit. 2. The department argued that the failure of the assessee to produce Smt. Mamta Devi should result in an adverse inference against the assessee. However, the High Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that Smt. Mamta Devi's regular assessment by the department, along with the established identity and financial capacity, supported the genuineness of the deposit. The Court found no merit in drawing an adverse inference due to the absence of Smt. Mamta Devi, as the Tribunal's decision was based on valid considerations and factual evidence. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
|
