TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) as well as the learned tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained expenditure under section 69C - Held that:- From the material on record and the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal, it appears that there was no evidence whatsoever collected by the A.O. that the assessee incurred expenditure towards discounting of the cheques. It was the specific case on behalf of the assessee that as the assessee did not incur any expenditure towards discounting of the cheques, thereafter it was for the A.O. to collect evidence showing that in fact, the assessee incurred expenditure. Once it was the case on behalf of the asseessee that it had not incurred any expenditure, in that case, thereafter onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the learned tribunal. 2.01. Now, so far as the proposed question No.(A) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the A.O. made addition on account of unexplained investment of ₹ 58,01,339/-. However, it is required to be noted that before the A.O. the assessee furnished complete details of bank transactions, name and address, Permanent Account Number of one Rakesh Panchal HUF submitting that the aforesaid amount belongs to said Rakesh Panchal HUF. Affidavit on oath was also filed by the assessee disclosing the above. 2.02. Despite the above and without holding any inquiry with respect to Rakesh Panchal HUF and/or without considering the veracity of claim of the assessee that the aforesaid amount belongs to said Rakesh Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt with Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Asharam Road Branch, Ahmedabad in the name of Rakesh I. Panchal HUF having Bank A/c. No.000400 and all the transactions appearing in that Bank Statement for the period from 01/04/2001 to 31/03/2002 of that Bank Account are solely belongs to me in the representative capacity of Karta of Rakesh I. Panchal HUF. Therefore, all the transactions carried out through that bank account and also any income whatsoever generated from transactions as appearing in such bank account for the period mentioned hereinabove are pertains to my HUF s only. They shown to me the Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25/09/2009 issued to Unipon (India) Limited for A.Y. 2002-03 and also reminder thereof da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify as to why there is no income generated from several transactions in the bank account or for that matter conduct other inquiries. The assessee having discharged its onus clearly confirming that whatever transactions were outside the books have been owned up before the Settlement commission and these transactions of Rakesh Panchal H.U.F. are not owned up before the Settlement Commission and before the Assessing Officer, the said person himself is owning up all these transactions there is no question of making addition of ₹ 58,01,339/- as unexplained investment. The addition made is, therefore, deleted. 2.04. The aforesaid has been confirmed by the learned tribunal by making following observations in para 2.4 :- 2.4. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial in support of his case that the aforesaid transactions belongs to one one Rakesh Panchal HUF and thereafter onus was shifted upon the A.O. to hold necessary inquiry with respect to the said alleged transactions and/or the amount belongs to Rakesh Panchal HUF, which the A.O. failed to discharged, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in deleting such addition. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal qua proposed Question No.(A) deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 3.01. Now, so far as proposed question No.(B) is concerned, it is with respect to addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|