TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds deletion of 50,00,000/- addition for unexplained cash in employee's possession</h1> <h3>ACIT, C.C. -5, New Delhi Versus Sh. Sundeep Kalsi</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete the addition of 50,00,000/- made on a protective basis ... - Issues Involved: The judgment involves the deletion of an addition made on a protective basis by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding unexplained cash found in possession of an employee of M/s SAS Servizio Ltd.Details of Judgment:Issue 1: Addition of 50,00,000/- made on protective basisThe Assessing Officer concluded that the cash of 50,00,000/- found with the employee belonged to M/s SAS Servizio Ltd. and was unexplained income. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, stating that the company had accepted that the cash belonged to them twice, during the survey and assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that since the company had acknowledged the cash as theirs, there was no need for the addition in the employee's hands on a protective basis.Key Phrases:- Addition made on protective basis- Unexplained cash found in possession- Company accepted cash belonged to them- Assessing Officer's conclusion- Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision- Tribunal's decisionSignificant Sentences:- 'Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of 50,00,000/- made on protective basis which represented unexplained cash of M/s SAS Servizio Ltd. of whom the assessee was an employee.'- 'The Assessing Officer concluded that the cash amounting to 50,00,000/- remains unexplained and represents income which has not or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of Income tax.'- 'The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition of 50 lacs in the hands of the appellant on protective basis is bad in law and is hereby deleted.'- 'The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) stating that since the company had acknowledged the cash as theirs, there was no need for the addition in the employee's hands on a protective basis.'Judge's Name: Not Applicable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
