9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1212 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Investment made in cash - HELD THAT - Assessee failed to establish the source of cash. Assessee did not file any representation before the Revenue authorities regarding typographical error. It is evident from the records that the CIT(Appeals) has given a finding about bank withdrawal and and deleted part of addition after considering the same. Thereby, he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is not the case where the learned CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition without considering the material available on record. Therefore, looking to the facts of the present case at this stage the assessee has not made out any case for deletion of impugned addition, hence no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT ( Appeals ) . Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, the addition of Rs. 3,32,313/- to the income of the assessee, and the application of u/s 69A of the Act in making the said addition. Summary: 1. Assessment Order Challenge: The appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee contended that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO was illegal and bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) was criticized for not quashing the assessment order despite finding that it lacked a speaking order and rejected submissions with casual remarks. The appellant sought to add, modify, or delete grounds of appeal. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,32,313/-: The addition of Rs. 3,32,313/- to the income of the assessee was challenged on various grounds. The assessee argued that the addition was based on presumptions without incriminating evidence. It was contended that the amount did not represent unexplained money but was expenditure made by the assessee. The source of the expenditure was explained by the assessee, and it was claimed that the addition was not tenable under the law and facts of the case. 3. Application of u/s 69A of the Act: The addition of Rs. 3,32,313/- was made u/s 69A of the Act, which was further contested by the assessee. It was argued that the amount did not represent unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or valuable article but was expenditure made by the assessee. The assessee maintained that the source of the expenditure was duly explained, rendering the addition under u/s 69A not tenable. The facts of the case revealed that a search & seizure operation was conducted by the Revenue at the assessee's residential premises. The Assessing Officer made an addition in respect of investments made in cash, leading to the current dispute. The counsel for the assessee argued that all evidence related to the expenditure was provided, and there was no incriminating material. The CIT(DR) supported the authorities' orders, emphasizing that the investments were made in cash without a clear source explanation. The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to establish the source of the cash expenses, leading to the addition. The CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 3,32,313/-. The Tribunal upheld the decision, noting that the appellant did not provide a valid explanation for the expenditure. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the CIT(Appeals. The judgment was pronounced on 27th April 2023 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI.
|
