9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 69 made by AO under section 68 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2003-2004.
Facts: - The AO added Rs. 1,50,000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as cash deposited from undisclosed source of income. - The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. - The assessee argued that the amount received was not a loan but his own money received back. - The AO observed discrepancies in the entries related to cash deposit and cheque issuance. Arguments before CIT(A): - The appellant explained that the money received was not a loan but his own funds. - The AO's contention regarding the sequence of entries was challenged. - The appellant cited judicial decisions to support the argument that section 68 does not apply if books of accounts are not maintained. CIT(A) Decision: - The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,50,000, stating that the appellant failed to provide plausible evidence for the source of deposit. - The CIT(A) rejected the argument that section 68 does not apply due to the absence of maintained books of accounts. - The addition was upheld under section 69 as unexplained investment. Tribunal Hearing: - The appellant requested further investigation by the AO. - The Revenue supported the AO's decision, emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee. Tribunal Decision: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of evidence provided by the assessee. - The Tribunal rejected the argument that section 68 does not apply due to the absence of maintained books of accounts. - The addition of Rs. 1,50,000 was deemed justified and the appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 69, as the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the source of deposit, despite citing lack of maintained books of accounts as a defense. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.
|
