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>Court rules in favor of appellant on interest income, against on unexplained cash addition. Emphasizes credible explanations.</h1> <h3>Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-11, Hyderabad</h3> Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-11, Hyderabad - TMI Issues:1. Addition of unexplained cash found during search2. Addition of interest income on unsecured loans3. Reframed substantial question regarding interest incomeAnalysis:Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash found during searchThe appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 23,35,000 as unexplained cash found during a search operation. The appellant initially provided an explanation for the source of the cash, mentioning contributions from partners and family. However, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant presented a different story involving a sale agreement with another individual. The Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and the Tribunal rejected this revised explanation. The appellant argued that the initial shock during the search should be considered, but the court found it implausible that the appellant could forget the source of such a significant amount kept in the house for nearly 20 days. The court also scrutinized the reliability of the sale agreement presented by the appellant, highlighting discrepancies that raised doubts about its authenticity. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to add the unexplained cash to the appellant's income.Issue 2: Addition of interest income on unsecured loansThe second issue pertained to the addition of Rs. 38,74,350 as interest income on unsecured loans advanced to a company. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the appellant's income based on TDS certificates. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this addition, but with a direction to verify the exact amount found during the search. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, leading to the present appeal. The court referred to a similar case where it was established that crediting interest in account books does not imply availability for withdrawal. The court noted that the appellant had converted the unsecured loan into equity shares, indicating that the interest income was not physically available for withdrawal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, aligning with the decision in the referenced case.Issue 3: Reframed substantial question regarding interest incomeThe court addressed a reframed substantial question related to interest income, which was previously decided in another case. The court referred to the decision in the previous case where it was established that the appellant did not have physical access to the interest income credited in the account books. The court emphasized that the appellant's ability to withdraw the interest income was restricted due to the conversion of the unsecured loan into equity shares. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant based on the precedent set in the earlier case.In conclusion, the court partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the interest income issue but against the appellant concerning the unexplained cash addition. The court provided detailed reasoning for each issue, emphasizing the importance of credible explanations and legal interpretations in determining the tax liabilities of the appellant.
TaxTMI 