Mega Offer Avail 65% Off in CA IPCC and 50% Off in all CA CS CMA subjects.Coupon- IPCEXAM65 & EXAM50. Call: 088803-20003

CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

LinkedIn


Court :
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Brief :

Citation :
Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Lalit Kumar Goel R.K. AGRAWAL AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Lalit Kumar Goel R.K. AGRAWAL AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ. IT REFERENCE NO. 83 OF 1999 July 31,2007 Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 - In course of a search and seizure operation, it was found that assessee-HUF had constructed a property - As regards source of funds towards said construction, assessee stated that amounts had been taken from various individuals and entities including funds of HUF - ITO expressed dissatisfaction with said explanation and held that withdrawals made from different sources 'might have been utilized for purposes of meeting household expenses - Further, referring to assessee's explanation that a major chunk of investment in construction had been financed by firm 'A9, Assessing Officer held that Department had not accepted existence of aforesaid entity - Thus, he treated entire investment in house property as unexplained investment and made addition under section 69 - Commissioner (Appeals) deleted said addition on ground that investment in construction had been properly explained by withdrawals shown by assessee which were also found at time of search inasmuch as entries recorded in seized material, with respect to source of funds for construction, tallied with assessee's statements - In absence of any rebuttal of said evidence by revenue, Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether findings of fact recorded by Tribunal, being based on evidence and material available on record, could not be interfered with in instant reference under section 256 - Held, yes
 

C.rajesh
on 04 April 2008
Published in Income Tax
Views :
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags