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>Sister concern's cash deposits for demand drafts not assessable as unexplained money under section 69A</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Vijayawada Versus Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni And Ananthaneni Harinadh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Vijayawada.</h3> Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Vijayawada Versus Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni And Ananthaneni Harinadh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Vijayawada. - ... Issues:The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2017-18.Issue 1: Admission of Additional EvidenceThe Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting new evidence without following the provisions of Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. DR supported the Ld. AO's order, while the Ld. AR argued that the turnover difference already taxed cannot be treated as unexplained money. The Ld. AR also explained that the cash deposits were used for a Demand Draft by a sister concern. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had the power under Section 250(4) of the Act to make further inquiries, and thus dismissed the Revenue's grounds.Issue 2: Treatment of Cash DepositsRegarding the treatment of cash deposits, the Ld. AO added Rs. 32,74,580 under Section 69A of the Act, and Rs. 55,43,977 was treated as unexplained income. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that once turnover is treated as income, it cannot be considered unexplained. The Tribunal observed that the cash deposits were made by a sister concern for a Demand Draft, as confirmed by an affidavit. The Tribunal held that these deposits were not the assessee's income but were used to facilitate the sister concern's business, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Ld. AO. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits in question were not the income of the assessee but were utilized to assist a sister concern in obtaining a Demand Draft. The Tribunal also highlighted the powers of the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 250(4) of the Act to conduct further inquiries. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed, and the appeal of the Revenue was ultimately dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
