Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the additions: the tribunal held that unsecured deposits could not be treated as unexplained loans where the depositor's ITR, PAN, address, and interest income (with TDS) were on record and uncontroverted by the Department, negating any presumption of unexplained liability. Separately, additions characterizing deposits as capital introduced were disallowed because the assessee furnished bank statements, partner capital accounts and ITRs evidencing prior withdrawals as the source, the AO failed to specify what further proof was required, and the CIT(A) merely affirmed without reasons. On this record the onus shifted to Revenue, which failed to rebut the assessee's cogent documentary explanation.
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the additions: the tribunal held that unsecured deposits could not be treated as unexplained loans where the depositor's ITR, PAN, address, and interest income (with TDS) were on record and uncontroverted by the Department, negating any presumption of unexplained liability. Separately, additions characterizing deposits as capital introduced were disallowed because the assessee furnished bank statements, partner capital accounts and ITRs evidencing prior withdrawals as the source, the AO failed to specify what further proof was required, and the CIT(A) merely affirmed without reasons. On this record the onus shifted to Revenue, which failed to rebut the assessee's cogent documentary explanation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
