9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 447 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s 69 - unexplained expenditure through Credit Card u/s 69C - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - The bank statement of the appellant and it is found that the appellant had made all his credit card expenses out of his HSBC Bank Account by cheques (Page no. 6). The appellant had also invested ₹ 12,30,000/- in mutual fund and not ₹ 28 lakh as claimed by the AO from AIR. There is a mistake of getting the information through AIR which was collected by the appellant s AR from bank. The transaction reported in the AIR was wrongly reported by the department. The AO should inform DGIT(System) to verify such information from the department server and correct it in future. The appellant investments of ₹ 12,30,000/- (page no. 8) is out of his bank amounts through SIP (Systematic Investment Plan) by the cheques. The appellant s all the investments made by the appellant stands explained. The appellant s written income during the year is ₹ 16,47,190/-. She is now settled in Singapore with her husband and both are in Chartered Accountant Firm. She is software engineer, considering her explanation and evidence No good reason to interfere with the findings arrived at in the impugned order. It is seen that no evidence controverting the facts as taken into consideration by the CIT(A) has been placed before us. The relevant documents relied upon by the CIT(A) support the case of the assessee wherein the assessment order is u/s 144 and the Remand Report in regard to relevant evidences has been obtained and considered. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances the departmental ground is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition on unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition on unexplained expenditure through Credit Card under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Validity of assessment order under section 144 due to non-service of notice u/s 143(2). Analysis: Issue 1: Addition on unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 as unexplained investment by the assessee under section 69. The AO, in an exparte assessment under section 144, increased the assessee's income based on AIR information. The CIT(A) allowed relief on merit, finding that the assessee's investments were explained. The CIT(A) verified the bank statements, concluding that the investments were only Rs. 12,30,000, not Rs. 28,00,000 as assessed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of evidence to challenge the findings. The departmental appeal was dismissed. Issue 2: Addition on unexplained expenditure through Credit Card under section 69C of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,33,433 as unexplained expenditure through Credit Card under section 69C. The AO deemed this expenditure unexplained, but the CIT(A) found that the assessee had used the credit card for personal expenses, supported by bank statements. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the lack of evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings. The departmental appeal was dismissed. Issue 3: Validity of assessment order under section 144 due to non-service of notice u/s 143(2): The assessee raised objections regarding the validity of the assessment order under section 144 due to the non-service of notice u/s 143(2). The CIT(A) considered this argument but primarily focused on the merit of the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as no evidence challenging the facts considered by the CIT(A) was presented. The departmental appeal was dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as academic. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions on unexplained investment and expenditure through Credit Card, emphasizing the lack of evidence to refute the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.
|
