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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal grants relief of Rs. 6 lakhs, confirms Rs. 4 lakhs as undisclosed income</h1> <h3>Shri Bharat Narang Versus A.C.I.T Central Circle 2 (3) Hyderabad</h3> Shri Bharat Narang Versus A.C.I.T Central Circle 2 (3) Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves the addition of Rs. 10.00 lakhs under section 153A of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2016-17 based on unaccounted/undisclosed income.Facts and Decision:The assessee, an individual deriving income from various sources, filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 after a search & seizure action was conducted. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 10.00 lakh as unaccounted income as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence regarding a transaction related to a land dispute settlement. The learned CIT (A) upheld the addition. The assessee contended that the plot owners directly paid Rs. 10 lakhs to another party as part of the sale consideration, and the assessee acted as a mediator without handling any funds. The Tribunal noted that the seized material indicated payments made by the assessee towards the settlement of the land dispute. Considering the assessee's regular tax filing history and explanations, the Tribunal allowed relief of Rs. 6 lakhs and confirmed the remaining Rs. 4 lakhs as undisclosed income, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found Rs. 6,00,000/- could be explained from past accumulations or savings, while Rs. 4,00,000/- remained unexplained. The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, balancing the interests of both parties by allowing relief of Rs. 6 lakhs to the assessee and confirming the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs as undisclosed income, considering the explanations provided, lack of evidence, and the assessee's tax filing history.