9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.section 147 of the Act. In this case, the original return was filed on 30.11.2000 declaring total income at Rs.1,68,220/-. The assessee is a director in M/s Skylite Electro Fixtures Pvt Ltd. from which she has earned salary income of Rs.1,34,400/-. The assessee has also declared business income of Rs.55,000/-, income from other sources at Rs.3,254/- and agricultural income of Rs.24,000/-. 3. On the basis of information received from Investigation Unit-III(3), Mumbai, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee has stated that the return filed on 30.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was further pointed out that primary onus u/s 69C of the Act is on the revenue and the revenue has to prove that the assessee has given donation of Rs.3,90,000/-. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to make addition of Rs.3,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without success. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has failed to contradict that the said amount was not paid by her in cash. Aggrieved by this the assessee is before us. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. It is the say of the counsel that the entire addition has been made on the strength of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p but cannot be stretched to the assessee. The provisions of section 69C of the Act clearly show that the it was for the revenue to first establish that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure and then the assessee does not offer any explanation about the source of such expenditure. In the case in hand, the assessee has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to M/s Ramarao Adik Education Society. The revenue has grossly failed to demonstrate that the assessee has paid capital fees for the admission of her son to Dr.D Y Patila Medical College. In our considered view the additions cannot be sustained on the strength of insufficient evidence. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) are accordingly reversed and the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.3,90,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
