The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0402 (Del-HC) : (2011) 202 TAXMAN 0262

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69Unexplained investment in shares and debentures--AO made addition on account of unexplained investment made in shares and debentures found during search. Assessee contended that said shares and debentures were belonging to other parties. Commissioner (Appeals) sent the matter to DDIT (Investigation) who concluded that assessee satisfactorily furnished the sources of the said investments. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the said report and deleted the addition. However, Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the case back to AO to hold an inquiry about the correlation between the date-wise withdrawal with the dates of investments made by the aforesaid parties. Held: Once assessee had explained the source and his explanation was accepted, there could not be any addition in the income of assessee. If further investigation was required for the aforesaid correlation, that aspect could not have been remitted back to AO for assessment while considering assessment of assessee.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal Commissioner (Appeals)--Additional evidence Sufficient opportunity not given to assessee--During the course of search, some jewellery and cash were found. AO made additions on the ground that assessee could not produce any documentary or other evidence to explain the jewellery and cash. Before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee furnished fresh evidence in form of assessment order of his wife in support of his submission that jewellery belonged to his wife. Insofar as cash was concerned, assessee produced the bank statement. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence, he therefore, admitted the fresh evidence and held that assessee had successfully accounted for the jewellery and cash and deleted the addition. AO submitted that the questionnaire was sent much in advance giving sufficient opportunity to assessee, but he failed to avail the same and produced the evidence. Held: Fresh evidence produced by assessee was without any blemish. Therefore, in order to advance, the cause of justice, evidence was rightly admitted.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 250(4)

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

A.K. SIKRI & M.L. MEHTA, J.J.

CIT v. Chandra Kant Chanu Bhai Patel

IT Appeal Nos. 1280, 1365 To 1367 of 2009

Block Period 1-4-1989 to 18-11-1999

30 March 2011

Appellant by : Suruchi Aggarwal and Shawana Bari

Respondent by : Shashi Kapila and R.R. Maurya

JUDGMENT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com