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 unexplained investment addition under Income-tax Act for undisclosed purchases.</h1> <h3>Sri Debasish Banerjee Versus Income-tax Officer, Wd-1 (1), Kolkata</h3> Sri Debasish Banerjee Versus Income-tax Officer, Wd-1 (1), Kolkata - [2015] 38 ITR (Trib) 469 (ITAT [Kolk]) Issues:- Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act for undisclosed purchases and profit for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69The appeals by the assessee challenged the orders confirming the Assessing Officer's addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act for undisclosed purchases and profit. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not properly consider all facts and circumstances, unjustly applied the Explanation to section 69, and arrived at a profit figure deemed hypothetical. The Assessing Officer noticed a variance between purchases debited in the trading account and those per TCS certificates, leading to the addition of undisclosed purchases and estimated profit. The assessee argued that the difference was a posting error, not unexplained investment, citing accounting principles. However, the Commissioner upheld the addition, noting the failure to produce evidence of accounted purchases or explain the unaccounted ones. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the inability to reconcile the purchase differences and the absence of maintained books of account, leading to the confirmation of the undisclosed purchases as per section 69.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the addition of unexplained investment under section 69 for the undisclosed purchases and profit, as the assessee failed to reconcile the differences, lacked proper documentation, and could not substantiate the claimed posting error. The decision aligned with the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the legal requirements under section 69 and the failure to discharge the burden of proof.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
