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 decision on Income Tax Act Section 69A upheld by High Court</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Belagavi Versus Basetteppa B Badami</h3> Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Belagavi Versus Basetteppa B Badami - TMI Issues:Challenge to orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The assessee, an individual engaged in trading pipes and tubes, had undergone a survey under Section 133A of the Act, revealing deposits in various bank accounts. Assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was concluded for the mentioned assessment years. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who partially allowed the appeals. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals stating there was sufficient opening balance of cash in hand for each year, as per the CIT(A) orders. The Revenue contested the deletion of addition under Section 69A of the Act, based on unexplained money in bank accounts, by relying on the brought forward balance of the preceding year. The Tribunal held that the closing cash in hand of the previous year is the opening cash in hand for the subsequent year, and since the Revenue did not contest this, the appeals were rejected.The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition based on the brought forward balance of the preceding year, which the Revenue did not challenge further due to monetary limits for filing an appeal. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal should have allowed them to establish the opening cash in hand for the subsequent year. However, the Tribunal upheld its decision, stating that the closing cash in hand of the previous year is considered the opening cash in hand for the subsequent year. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the issue which has reached finality cannot be reopened based on new arguments. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, finding no irregularity in its order and dismissed the appeals, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
