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 confirms additions for unexplained income and investments, emphasizes substantiating evidence.</h1> <h3>INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus MEHERIA REID & ASSOCIATES KOLKATA</h3> INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus MEHERIA REID & ASSOCIATES KOLKATA - TMI Issues:1. Deletion of addition of Rs.14,88,972/- on account of professional receipt.2. Confirmation of addition of Rs.6,39,019/- for A.Yr.2005-06 and Rs.29,00,000/- for A.Yr.2006-07 in respect of investment in Mutual Funds.Analysis:Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs.14,88,972/- on account of professional receiptThe Revenue raised the issue of deletion of the addition of Rs.14,88,972/- on account of professional receipt. The Assessing Officer noted a discrepancy between the professional charges shown in the Profit and Loss account and the TDS certificates filed with the return. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the appellant regularly admitted professional receipts irrespective of the amounts received during the previous year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that while discrepancies existed, there was no evidence of professional receipts suppression. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Confirmation of addition of Rs.6,39,019/- and Rs.29,00,000/- for A.Yr.2005-06 and A.Yr.2006-07 in respect of investment in Mutual FundsThe assessee's appeal concerned the confirmation of additions for investments in Mutual Funds. The Assessing Officer treated the investments as unexplained under section 69 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of explanation and supporting documents. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, noting insufficient information on the sources of investments. The Tribunal, after considering various case laws, concluded that the investments made from disclosed bank accounts lacked substantiation. As the assessee failed to explain the deposits made in the bank accounts used for investments, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the assessee's appeal on this issue.Additionally, the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer's notice under section 147. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that the original assessment was made under section 143(1), rendering the additional ground unsustainable. Consequently, both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, emphasizing the importance of substantiating investments and professional receipts to avoid additions under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 