TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made under Section 69B as unexplained investments?" 2. The assessee filed her return of income admitting total income of Rs.186/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) were issued, calling for details. The assessee furnished the details regarding the deposits and withdrawals from the bank account of City Union Bank, T.Nagar, along with bank statement. It was also found that the assessee was a Partner in Raja Musical Universal and Illayaraja Multinational and those firms had no activity from the previous year relating to the assessment year 2005-06. It also stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 filed on 26.12.2007 to this end. Thus, the assessment was completed to include a sum of Rs.60,57,212/- as income from other sources. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) questioning the addition by contending that the entries in the accounts were properly explained. In the background of this, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) called for remand report. In the remand report, it was stated that the assessee could not provide the details of the parties to whom the amounts were advanced. Even though the assessee was able to provide confirmation list from the parties along with income tax details and addresses, yet, in the absence of production of definite evidence, the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals), a remand report was called from the Officer. It further pointed out that when the assessee had produced materials regarding the income tax details of the parties and their addresses, the Officer did not verify the veracity of the details; however, satisfied of certain evidence at her possession, chose to confirm the assessment. The Tribunal further pointed out that the Officer simply evaded the reply. The assessee sent the books of accounts and relevant confirmations of the parties to the Assessing Officer for her comments. In the background of its impression, the Tribunal held that when the assessee filed confirmation of the creditors as well as the complete details of the returns and the primary duty cast on the assessee thus disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee on the said deposits were conceded to, if the assessee had chosen to file further materials before the Appellate Authority and asserted the case as to the reason for admission for addition as not voluntary and gave the details regarding persons who had advanced their money, in all fairness to the claim of the Revenue, which had come across such voluminous materials, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The least the Tribunal could have considered, if it so desired on the stated circumstances, would be, remanding the assessment for fresh consideration. On the other hand, the assessee having conceded the same as her income, the order of the Tribunal holding that the acceptance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od reason to accept this line of reasoning to grant the relief. There is hardly any material to show the consideration by the said Appellate Authority on the nature of evidence filed other than what was considered by the Officer or even to correct the reasoning of the Officer on the materials produced before him to come to the conclusion that the assessee had explained the investments satisfactorily. When we look at the reasoning of the Tribunal as the final fact finding body, it is still worse. The Tribunal seems to have taken sympathy plane to grant the relief to the assessee. It viewed "when the assessee was heckled with query after query, she made a conditional surrender vide letter dated 24.12.2007 during original proceedings. But when....