1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court upholds Tribunal decision on unexplained deposit under Income-tax Act; creditor's legitimacy established.</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of an unexplained deposit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The Court found the ... - Issues:1. Whether the addition of an unexplained deposit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act was correctly deleted by the Income-tax Appellate TribunalRs.2. Whether the failure of the assessee to produce the creditor, Smt. Mamta Devi, should lead to an adverse inference against the assesseeRs.Analysis:1. The dispute in this case pertains to the assessment year 1990-91, where the assessee disclosed a cash credit of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of his wife, Smt. Mamta Devi. The assessing authority treated this cash credit as unexplained income when the assessee failed to produce Smt. Mamta Devi for verification. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, noting that Smt. Mamta Devi was regularly assessed by the department for her income and wealth, with her returns being accepted by the revenue. The Tribunal found the deposit to be genuine based on the established identity and capacity of the creditor. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the deposit was legitimate as Smt. Mamta Devi had the financial capacity to provide the deposit, having been assessed under both the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of the unexplained deposit.2. The department argued that the failure of the assessee to produce Smt. Mamta Devi should result in an adverse inference against the assessee. However, the High Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that Smt. Mamta Devi's regular assessment by the department, along with the established identity and financial capacity, supported the genuineness of the deposit. The Court found no merit in drawing an adverse inference due to the absence of Smt. Mamta Devi, as the Tribunal's decision was based on valid considerations and factual evidence. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
