9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the addition of Rs. 1 lakh under section 69 of the Act. 2. Verification of the source of cash found during a search. 3. Acceptance of explanation regarding withdrawals from a partnership firm. Analysis: Issue 1: Discrepancy in the addition of Rs. 1 lakh under section 69 of the Act. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1 lakh under section 69 of the Act, despite the assessee's explanation that the amount was withdrawn from a partnership firm. The AO rejected this explanation based on a time gap between the withdrawal and the search date. The authorized representative argued that the entire Rs. 5 lakhs found during the search belonged to the assessee, with Rs. 1 lakh being part of the withdrawals made from the firm. The Tribunal found that the explanation offered by the assessee was factually correct and supported by records. It held that once the explanation was verified and found to be correct, the Revenue could not reject it merely on suspicion. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the appeal, stating that the Rs. 1 lakh withdrawn from the partnership firm should be excluded from the unaccounted income. Issue 2: Verification of the source of cash found during a search. During a search conducted at a premises, an almirah belonging to the assessee was found to contain cash of Rs. 5 lakhs. The assessee admitted ownership of the cash and offered it for taxation. Subsequent statements revealed that Rs. 1 lakh was withdrawn from a partnership firm, and the rest was unaccounted income. The AO rejected the inclusion of Rs. 1 lakh, leading to the entire Rs. 5 lakhs being taxed as unaccounted income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the source of the cash found during the search. It considered the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the withdrawals and concluded that the Rs. 1 lakh withdrawn from the firm should not be treated as unaccounted income. Issue 3: Acceptance of explanation regarding withdrawals from a partnership firm. The authorized representative argued that the withdrawals made from the partnership firm before the search should be accepted as genuine. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the lower authorities' reasoning and accepted the explanation provided by the assessee. It highlighted the lack of concrete evidence to refute the assessee's claim that the Rs. 1 lakh withdrawn from the firm was part of the cash found during the search. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and excluding the Rs. 1 lakh from the unaccounted income offered by the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and excluding the Rs. 1 lakh withdrawn from the partnership firm from the unaccounted income declared by the assessee.
|
