ITAT partially allows appeal, directing further examination and cross-examination in tax case The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the Rs. 5,18,220 bogus capital gain and the Rs. ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT partially allows appeal, directing further examination and cross-examination in tax case
The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the Rs. 5,18,220 bogus capital gain and the Rs. 6,09,000 unaccounted money for property purchase. The ITAT referred to a similar case, directing further examination by the assessing officer and allowing cross-examination of witnesses by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) based on lack of evidence and the onus being on the department to prove undisclosed investment, following the doctrine of stare decisis.
Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the deletion of addition of Rs. 5,18,220/- made by the AO on account of bogus capital gain and the deletion of addition of Rs. 6,09,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted money paid for the purchase of immovable property.
Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,18,220/- on account of bogus capital gain: The appellants had purchased shares of a company and made a long term capital gain upon selling them. The AO held a portion of this gain as bogus capital gain in a subsequent assessment. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition. The ITAT referred to a similar case and set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for further examination and directed to allow cross-examination of witnesses by the assessee.
Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,09,000/- on account of unaccounted money for property purchase: The AO made an addition on account of unaccounted money paid for the purchase of immovable property. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition based on lack of evidence and the onus being on the department to prove undisclosed investment. The ITAT upheld this decision, citing the lack of evidence to support the addition. The tribunal followed the doctrine of stare decisis and upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in this case.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, upholding the deletion of the additions made by the AO in both the cases discussed above.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
