9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1150 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained Cash deposit in Catholic Syrian Bank - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that after considering the submissions made by the parties and analysing the entire materials placed before it, the Tribunal being the fact finding body, dismissed the assessee's appeal. Moreover, the issues involved herein are all questions of facts and the same do not involve any principle of law, warranting interference at the hands of this court. See METROARK LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA 2004 (1) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT . That apart, it is settled law that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong - See Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras 1975 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT . - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition of cash deposits without considering the nature of the transactions. 2. Denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Addition of Cash Deposits The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of cash deposits totaling &8377; 46,50,000, &8377; 12,50,000, and &8377; 6,00,000 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the explanations provided by the appellant regarding these cash deposits. For the &8377; 46,50,000 deposit, the Tribunal noted that the confirmation letter provided by the appellant was considered an afterthought due to lack of supporting evidence. Similarly, for the &8377; 12,50,000 deposit, discrepancies arose between the appellant's claims and the statements of the involved party, leading to a lack of evidence supporting the transactions. Regarding the &8377; 6,00,000 deposit, the appellant failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the involved party. The Tribunal upheld the additions due to the lack of satisfactory explanations and evidence provided by the appellant. Issue 2: Denial of Exemption under Section 54F The appellant's claim for exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act was denied by the assessing officer. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's wife, an independent assessee, had already claimed exemption under section 54F for the same property. As the wife had utilized the exemption for investing her own capital gain, the appellant's claim for the same property was deemed inadmissible. The Tribunal concluded that since the wife had already availed the exemption, the appellant's claim could not be granted. The denial of exemption was upheld as per the provisions of the Act and the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the tax case appeal filed by the appellant against the Tribunal's order. The court emphasized that the issues raised were primarily questions of fact, and the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, had correctly analyzed the evidence and dismissed the appeal. Citing legal precedents, the court reiterated that interference with the Tribunal's findings was unwarranted unless they were shown to be perverse or wrong. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
