2015 (12) TMI 1543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the ground of the appellant where the ITO has applied section 68 while making the addition. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the provision of section 69 instead of section 68 by getting protection of section 292B. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the plea of the appellant that the addition made may be considered as agriculture income and income from other sources on proportion basis and declared by the appellant." 2. The brief facts of the case are that: "The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that there were cash deposits exceeding the threshold limit into his savings bank accounts with OBC, Bucho, Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bank account with Dena Bank at Bathidna, which was jointly held by Sh. Gurbinder Singh along with the assessee. Alongwith this, a duly notarized affidavit of Sh.Gurbinder Singh was also filed deposing therein that the aforesaid bank account, though held jointly by Sh.Gurbinder Singh and the assessee, actually belonged to Sh. Gurbinder Singh and he owned all the transactions contained in this account. The AO tested this explanation also and found that prior to the purported advance by Sh. Gurbinder Singh to the assessee, the account had only a petty balance of Rs. 2916/- only. With these facts in the possession of the AO, it was held by him that the assessee had no satisfactory explanation for the impugned cash deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/- an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... income should not be treated differently for the purposes of applying other provisions of the Act. It has been contended that there is no denying that the AO had committed a mistake by invoking the provisions of section 68 but has correctly taken note of by the ld. CIT(A). This is an irregularity which gets immunity by the provisions of section 292B of the Act. 6. In this regard, the facts are not disputed. The question is that when, AO has been held to be wrongly applied the provisions of section 69, whether the addition can be sustained by invoking, instead, the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It cannot be gainsaid that section 68 of the Act deals with the cash credits, whereas section 69 concerns the unexplained investments. ....