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>ITAT upholds deletion of addition under Section 68 of I.T. Act. Cash deposits used for insurance.</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3) Versus Smt. Vaidehi Jaydatt Jani</h3> Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3) Versus Smt. Vaidehi Jaydatt Jani - TMI Issues:Appeal against deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for undisclosed cash credit.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee, an Investment and Insurance Agent, had deposited cash in her bank account for making investments for insurance policies of investors. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee and made the addition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the explanation provided by the assessee.Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the ITAT found that all withdrawals from the bank account were for payments to LIC of India, and all deposits were in cash. The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence to show that the payments to LIC were not on behalf of the customers but were the assessee's own. The ITAT also considered an affidavit filed by the assessee, where she admitted the cash deposited as her income, but later retracted this admission, citing pressure due to personal circumstances.The ITAT further analyzed the judgments cited by both parties. The judgments cited by the Revenue were found to be inapplicable to the present case, as they did not align with the unique circumstances and explanations provided by the assessee. On the other hand, the judgment cited by the assessee supported her contentions and the evidence presented.Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition, as it found no justification to interfere based on the facts and explanations provided. The ITAT concluded that the entire amount deposited in the bank was used to pay premiums for others, with no personal expenditure by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 