9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Tribunal has rightly held that the Assessing Officer has committed error in making addition of ₹ 43,07,179/- under Section 69/69C of the Act. No substantial question of law - Decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 181 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2015 - M. R. Shah And S. H. Vora,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Sudhir M Mehta, Adv. For the Respondent : None ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, the return of income was filed on 31.07.2007 declaring total income at ₹ 5,00,498/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Simultaneously, the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire dated 10.08.2007 and 02.11.2007 were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. That on the basis of one chit recovered during the search, in which, name of the assessee was reflected with the amount of ₹ 43,07,179/-, the assessee gave explanation with respect to the same, however, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the same and made addition of ₹ 43,07,179/- as unexplained expenditure under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enditure of ₹ 43,07,179/- u/s 69C of the Act and duly confirmed by the CIT(A) in the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim of the said expenses of the Assessee? 4. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have also considered the order passed by the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹ 43,07,179/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69/69(C) of the Act as well as the order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 43,07,179/- as unexpla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
