9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves appeals by the Revenue against separate orders of the ld.CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad for AYs 2006-07 & 2009-10, pertaining to deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed income.
Issue 1: AY 2006-07 The case was reopened u/s.148 and assessment was concluded u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, with additions made on account of peak balance in the undisclosed bank account for F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO regarding the peak credit balance but allowed the alternative relief claimed by the assessee in respect of incremental peak. The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal challenging the incremental peak adjustment. The ld.CIT(A) decided to restrict the addition towards peak credit to the incremental amount for the year, excluding the peak credit for the earlier year. This decision was based on the 'Real income' theory and supported by relevant case laws. The incremental peak calculation was crucial to avoid taxing the same income twice. The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents and legal principles, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07. Issue 2: AY 2009-10 Similar to the AY 2006-07 appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made on account of undisclosed income for AY 2009-10. The grounds raised were identical to the previous appeal, with the only change being in the figures. The Tribunal, considering the consistent view taken in the AY 2006-07 appeal, dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 as well. In both cases, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the ld.CIT(A) regarding the treatment of incremental peak and the deletion of specific additions related to undisclosed income, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals for both AYs. This judgment highlights the importance of incremental peak calculations in determining undisclosed income and avoiding double taxation, as well as the significance of legal precedents in supporting such decisions.
|
