9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 53 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed source in respect of capital appellant is filing its return of income U/s 44AD - Held that - Assessee has stated that assessee has been doing business for more than 12 years. Therefore capital balance is fully justified - Assessing Officer in his remand report has stated that the household expenditure is estimated at Rs.50,000/- per annum, then for the 10 years the expenditure would be at Rs.5 lakh - assessee has made payment towards LIC and also PF account. Admittedly, this amount is outgoing from the capital account and same would have been in the earlier years also. Moreover, the assessee has not given any details of the household expenditure - it cannot be presumed that assessee was not incurring any household expenses - CO of the assessee is dismissed
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.22,74,423 on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained introduction in capital under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs.48,90,822 related to unsecured loan by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 3. Confirmation of addition of Rs.7,15,719 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Issue 1: Addition of Rs.22,74,423 on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained introduction in capital under section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The case involved the assessment year 2008-09 where the Assessing Officer made additions under section 68 of the Act based on unexplained fresh capital introduced and unsecured loans. The assessee contended that the opening balance in the capital account justified the additions. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.7,15,719 as unexplained. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Assessing Officer's remand report justified the additions. However, the ITAT found that the Revenue did not provide a breakdown of the amount in question. The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision based on the remand report, stating that the deletion of the addition related to unsecured loans was justified. Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs.48,90,822 related to unsecured loan by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals): The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.48,90,822 concerning an unsecured loan based on the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contested this decision, claiming that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was erroneous. However, the ITAT found that the deletion was made after considering the remand report, and as the Assessing Officer himself admitted to an income amount, the ITAT saw no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 3: Confirmation of addition of Rs.7,15,719 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the Cross Objection filed by the assessee: In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, the main contention was the confirmation of the addition of Rs.7,15,719 by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that the opening capital balance was justified based on years of business operations and income declarations. The Assessing Officer's remand report mentioned household expenses, but the ITAT noted that specific details were not provided by the assessee. Despite this, the ITAT found no fault in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the assessee's Cross Objection. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection. The ITAT upheld the decisions made by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the additions and deletions in the assessment for the relevant year.
|
