Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16245.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 256 Views


The Tax Publishers Alkaben Tejpal Patwa v. ITO [ITA No. 3486/Ahd/2015, dt. 15-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2194 (Ahd-Trib) Unproven additions under section 68 *Facts:* Assessee along with 6 others in appeal was found to have received 14 drafts in HDFC bank for INR 49,000 each and INR 14,000 amounting to INR 7 lakhs each in overall on the same day with same applicant for the drafts from various co-operative banks with same set of persons. This was suspected by the assessing officer and added under section 68 upheld in appeals. ITAT remanded the case to assessing officer for summoning and seeking evidence of such addition and to factually determine the case afresh. In the second round, it was also pleaded by the assessee that the amounts received were all repayment of old loans and advances and thus produced balance sheet with the list of loans and advances issued. Again the additions were sustained and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal by the assessee: Held in favour of the assessee that the department had failed to corroborate proof on the basis of additions being made under section 68, so the case fails. The pattern and the manner and the amount receipt and the date being coincidental with 6 different people caused suspicion in this case.

The Tax Publishers

Alkaben Tejpal Patwa v. ITO [ITA No. 3486/Ahd/2015, dt. 15-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2194 (Ahd-Trib)

Unproven additions under section 68

Facts:

Assessee along with 6 others in appeal was found to have received 14 drafts in HDFC bank for INR 49,000 each and INR 14,000 amounting to INR 7 lakhs each in overall on the same day with same applicant for the drafts from various co-operative banks with same set of persons. This was suspected by the assessing officer and added under section 68 upheld in appeals. ITAT remanded the case to assessing officer for summoning and seeking evidence of such addition and to factually determine the case afresh. In the second round, it was also pleaded by the assessee that the amounts received were all repayment of old loans and advances and thus produced balance sheet with the list of loans and advances issued. Again the additions were sustained and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal by the assessee:

Held in favour of the assessee that the department had failed to corroborate proof on the basis of additions being made under section 68, so the case fails. The pattern and the manner and the amount receipt and the date being coincidental with 6 different people caused suspicion in this case.