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>Tax Appeal Dismissed: Assessee Prevails with Explanations Accepted by CIT and Tribunal</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus AMULAKHBHAI UTTAMCHAND SHAH</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus AMULAKHBHAI UTTAMCHAND SHAH - TMI Issues:1. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Deletion of addition of unexplained income of the assessee.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:The first issue in this case pertains to the addition of Rs.6,16,378 as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis after certain unaccounted transactions were found during a search proceeding. The CIT (Appeals) remanded the case for a report from the Assessing Officer. The assessee provided an explanation for Rs.5,48,282, stating it was received from a person residing in the USA who sold gold in India to meet social obligations. The CIT (Appeals) accepted this explanation and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the substantive addition was already made in the hands of another group. The Tribunal found the reasoning satisfactory and justified the deletion of the amount added by the Assessing Officer on a protective basis.Issue 2: Deletion of addition of unexplained income of the assessee:The second issue involves the deletion of the addition of Rs.4,91,783, which was added as unexplained income of the assessee related to the amount in the name of the minor daughter of the assessee. The explanation provided was that it was the declared cash of the wife of the assessee at the time of permanent settlement in India after migration from Pakistan. The CIT (Appeals) accepted this explanation and deleted the addition. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the CIT (Appeals), noting that the challenge made by the Department was not justifiable. The Tribunal found the explanation regarding the deposit in the name of the minor daughter acceptable.In conclusion, both issues were decided based on factual analysis. The explanations provided by the assessee were considered plausible by both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. No errors were found in the orders, and no legal questions arose. Therefore, the Tax Appeal was dismissed as it did not warrant further consideration.
TaxTMI 