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 deletes Rs. 3,00,000 addition under Income Tax Act Section 68, finding burden of proof met.</h1> <h3>Padam Sain Gupta Versus ACIT Central Circle Karnal</h3> Padam Sain Gupta Versus ACIT Central Circle Karnal - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are related to the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the consideration of cash withdrawals by the assessee before a search and seizure operation, and the burden of proof on the assessee regarding unexplained amounts.Addition under Section 68 of the Act:The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the addition was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer only considered the first part of the assessee's statement and ignored the fact that the assessee had made large cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 26,50,000 immediately before the search and seizure operation.Consideration of cash withdrawals:The Learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 26,50,000 immediately before the date of search, which was much higher than the cash amount seized during the search. Despite this, the Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 stating that the assessee had not discharged the onus regarding this amount. However, during the search, the assessee stated that the cash withdrawn was available with him for renovation work in his factory building. The Tribunal observed that the cash withdrawals before the search were substantial, and no addition could have been made under Section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.Burden of proof on the assessee:The Tribunal, in its considered view, emphasized that the large cash withdrawals by the assessee before the search, along with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the availability of cash for renovation work, outweighed the need for the addition under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the sole grievance of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.Separate Judgment by Judges:The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 06.09.2023 by Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member.
TaxTMI 