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 overturns unexplained investment addition, accepts agricultural income explanation.</h1> <h3>Shri Harpal Yadav Versus The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur.</h3> Shri Harpal Yadav Versus The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur. - TMI Issues:1. Assessment order validity under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A2. Addition of Rs. 369,850 as unexplained investmentAnalysis:Issue 1: Assessment order validity under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153AThe assessee challenged the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A as bad in law and fact. The appellant contended that there was no change in the source of income, being a farmer earning from agriculture and dairy business. Despite not maintaining regular books of accounts, the assessee explained the cash payment for a car purchase on 13.02.2013 through cash flow statements, capital accounts, and balance sheets prepared on an estimated basis. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 369,850 as unexplained investment due to the absence of cash withdrawals in the bank statement. However, the appellant argued that the payment was justified as it came from disclosed sources of income, supported by financial statements and cash flow statements from AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14. The AO's rejection was deemed unjustified as the entire receipts were assessed for tax, and the CIT(A) summarily upheld the addition without valid reasons.Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 369,850 as unexplained investmentThe CIT/DR supported the AO's findings, emphasizing the lack of maintained books of accounts and insufficient cash availability as per the capital account. The AO considered the car purchase payment as from undisclosed income, adding it to the total income for AY 2013-14. However, upon review, the Tribunal noted the regular filing of returns since AY 2010-11, with reported agricultural and dairy income for the relevant year. The appellant justified the cash payment for the car through net cash receipts from agricultural and dairy activities, explaining the source of funds. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable, directing the deletion of the Rs. 369,850 addition as the investment was not from undisclosed sources.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the adequacy of explained sources for the car purchase and overturning the addition of Rs. 369,850 as unexplained investment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
