Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (4) TMI 231 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition amounting to Rs. 2,08,10,930/- on account of undisclosed income under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Undisclosed Income:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 2,08,10,930/- made by the Ld. AO under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO based the addition on suspicious messages found on the assessee's mobile phone, alleging involvement in hawala transactions. The Ld. AO concluded that the messages indicated undisclosed income, but the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. Assessee's Defense and Ld. CIT(A)'s Observations:
The assessee argued that the messages were related to amounts received from the sale of oil by the firm M/s MG Oils and were duly accounted for in the firm's books. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Ld. AO had erroneously considered amounts mentioned in the messages multiple times and failed to establish that these amounts represented income accrued to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the correct amount, after removing duplications, was Rs. 89,33,930/- and not Rs. 2,08,10,930/-.

3. Business Relationship and Accounting:
The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the messages were related to business transactions with SHARMAJI/PANDITJI of Delhi and that the amounts were recorded in the books of M/s MG Oils and M/s Vinod Industries, where the assessee was a partner. The Ld. AO herself acknowledged that cash deposits in customers' bank accounts pertained to M/s MG Oils, supporting the assessee's claim that the amounts were linked to legitimate business transactions.

4. Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Ld. AO's addition was unjustified as it included duplicated amounts and failed to establish that the amounts represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, affirming the deletion of the Rs. 2,08,10,930/- addition.

Result:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates