9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1600 - HC - Income TaxAdditions u/s 68 - Held that - The assessee successfully proved the source of income and the same was routed through the Bank. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as undisclosed income and in making the additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits in bank accounts for various assessment years. Analysis: Issue 1: Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act - The appeals were filed by the revenue challenging the ITAT's judgment regarding additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits in bank accounts for different assessment years. - The revenue raised substantial questions of law concerning the deletion of these additions by the CIT(A) for each appellant, questioning the correctness of the ITAT's decision. - The CIT(A) deleted the additions after finding that the amounts in question were routed through the bank accounts and the appellants provided explanations for the sources of income, leading to the conclusion that the funds were not undisclosed income. - The CIT(A) held that the appellants adequately explained the sources of the funds, which were then deposited into the bank accounts, and thus, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified. - The High Court agreed with the CIT(A) and ITAT's findings, stating that the appellants successfully proved the sources of income and the funds were legitimately routed through the bank accounts, justifying the deletion of the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Conclusion: - The High Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no substantial question of law as the decisions were based on evidence and the appellants' explanations regarding the sources of the funds.
|
