2018 (3) TMI 1530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment. After issuance of statutory and mandatory notices, assessing officer proceeded to verify the assessment. The appellants were asked to submit information in regard to cash deposits into the bank accounts. 3. The assessing officer did not find the explanation satisfactory. The deposits in the bank accounts were considered as unexplained investment and added the same to the total income as provided U/Sec. 69 of the Income Tax Act (for short " I.T. Act"). 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals. The Commissioner Appeals dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. Aggrieved thereby the appellants filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune upheld the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the law came into force and not from the date on which the decision is rendered ? The judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (supra) is binding on the Tribunal ? Substantial Questions of Law in Appeal No. 61 of 2015 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in its decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 4,06,550/U/ Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act, when the provisions of Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act do apply, when income is not recorded in the books of account maintained as maintenance of books of account is sine qua non to apply Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act ? Whether the Tribunal ought to have considered the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court Bombay High Court that the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the authorities below have failed to consider the corresponding withdrawals from the same accounts leaving as insufficient balance in the end of the accounts. The addition of income is not the real income, which never accrued to the assessee under the law. 7. Mr. Sharma, the learned advocate for the respondents/department supports the order and submits that, there is marked distinction between Sec. 68 and 69 of the I. T. Act. Sec. 69 deals with unexplained investments. The assessee has failed to explain the investment. Inconsistent explanations were given. The learned advocate relies on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case of Banshidhar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1983) 36 CTR 0094 and another....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the explanation of the assessee and the assessee have taken different stand before the assessing officer. The evidences filed by the assessee did not remotely support the case of the assessee. Nothing has been placed to explain the source of investment. The assessee even remotely did not take stand that they do not maintain books of account and that Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act is not applicable. It would be to late in the day to contend the same in the present appeals. 11. Be that as it may, there is marked difference between Sec. 68 and Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act. Sec. 69 of the I. T. Act applies where the assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source of investment or the explanation offerred by him is not in the opinion of the a....