9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without prejudice to one another. 2. The Commissioner of lncome-tax (Appeals), Jamnagar [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 9,26,133/- out of total addition of Rs.10,01,133/- made u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain the source of opening capital to extent of Rs.9,26,133/-. The addition retained is totally unjustified and uncalled for and deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 3. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. Total tax effect 2,25,460/- 3. At the outset we note that the appeal is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income of the assessee. Since the assessee did not file any reply in response to the show cause notice issued by the assessing officer, he added the above amount of Rs. 10,01,133/- to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act). In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the counsel for the assessee submitted that the opening capital balance of Rs. 10,01,133/- was out of savings of past 10 to 12 years as the assessee was working as an employee earning salary income and has accumulated earnings. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave minor relief to the assessee in appeal and held that benefit of cash amount of Rs. 75,000/- can be given to the assessee as cash being available to him and accordingly Ld. CIT(Appeals) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the said company was furnished. In response, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. Assessing Officer in their respective orders. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that the assessee has been working as a salaried employed for past several years and has also furnished employment certificate from his employer to that effect. Further, we note that the Revenue has not doubted/discarded the cash book placed on record by the assessee at pages 12 to 14 of the paper book, which was also duly placed before the revenue authorities at the time of assessment/appeal. Even during the impugned year, the assessee has shown income to the tune of Rs. 2.18 lakhs from s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the genuineness of the brought-forward capital cannot be doubted. Simply because the assessee's income became taxable in this year and the assessee filed the return complying with the provisions of law cannot be a ground to penalise the assessee by not accepting its brought forward capital and that too without bringing any evidence to the contrary. The Revenue's allegation that the assessee stone-walled the investigations also cannot be appreciated because in case the assessee was not furnishing the details required by the AO, he had ample power under the IT Act to make necessary enquiry at his own level and should not have allowed the assessee to escape the liability of proper tax. 5. In view of above facts and circumstances, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
