9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 71 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of additions made u/s 68 of the Act - Identity of the Creditors and the genuineness of the transactions could not be proved Evidences to prove the source of lenders could not be established Held that - The assessee has not maintained any books of account and whatever credit entries are found by the Assessing Officer, it was from the bank accounts of the assessee in which deposits were made at different point of time - Even the passbook issued by the bank cannot be termed to be the book of the assessee Relying upon Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona Versus Bhaichand H. Gandhi 1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY High Court Thus, the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked on various deposits/credits found recorded in the bank account of the assessee in the absence of books of the assessee maintained for that previous year - Provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked on the deposits made in the bank account of the assessee, the veracity of the additions made by the Assessing Officer on certain deposits by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act - the CIT(A) stated that the assessee has furnished reasonable and plausible explanations along with confirmation with regard to the different deposits Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Deletion of additions made by Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the CIT(A). Detailed analysis: 1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding various additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The CIT(A) was criticized for deleting these additions without sufficient evidence of the identity of creditors, genuineness of transactions, and source of income of alleged lenders. The CIT(A) was accused of overlooking relevant legal decisions, specifically the case of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 151 (All.). 2. The assessee challenged the additions related to Stridhan of his wife and on the basis of presumption through a cross objection. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel chose not to press the cross objection, which was subsequently dismissed. This left only the Revenue's appeal questioning the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee, an Advocate by profession, did not maintain books of account for the relevant assessment year. The deposits identified by the Assessing Officer were from bank passbooks on different dates. The assessee argued that section 68 of the Act could not be invoked as the deposits were not credited in the assessee's books. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument, emphasizing that passbooks supplied by banks do not qualify as books of the assessee for invoking section 68. 4. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 68, which require sums to be credited in the assessee's maintained books for invoking the section. Citing judgments such as Anand Ram Ratiani v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) and CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982], it was established that passbooks are not considered books of the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be applied to deposits in the bank account without the assessee's maintained books. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's explanations and confirmed the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. Despite finding that section 68 could not be invoked for the bank deposits, the Tribunal reviewed the additions on their merits. The Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee reasonable and plausible, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and confirmation of the CIT(A)'s decision. 6. In conclusion, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection were dismissed based on the Tribunal's analysis of the legal provisions and precedents regarding the invocation of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
|
