|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5281 (Jp-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Once the bill was issued in name of assessee-firm and it accepted the same, the onus was clearly on assessee-firm to demonstrate through verifiable evidence that purchases had been done from its own disclosed sources of income. Therefore, addition under section 69 on account of unexplained investment was justified.
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69 - Unexplained investment -
Assessee, a firm of Chartered accountants, was engaged in providing professional services. During search at the residence of one of the partners of assessee-firm, two bills issued towards purchase of electronic items were seized and assessee firm was asked to explain the source of investment for purchase of the electronics items as so mentioned in the said bills. The submissions so filed by assessee-firm were considered but not found acceptable to AO and addition of Rs. 2,20,000 was made in the hands of the assessee-firm. Held: Once the bill was issued in name of assessee firm and it accepted the same and consequent purchase of electronic item, the onus was clearly on assessee-firm to demonstrate through verifiable evidence that such purchases had been done from its disclosed sources of income. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record that such purchases were made by assessee-firm from its own disclosed sources, the unexplained investment towards such purchase of Rs. 45,000 was upheld. As far as the other item of Rs. 1,75,000 was concerned, there was no mention of assessee firm's name on the said bill and thus, there was no basis to hold that the said document belonged to the assessee-firm. The addition of Rs. 1,75,000 was thus deleted.
REFERRED : CIT v. Ambika Appalam Depot (2012) 340 ITR 497 (Mad) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0660 (Mad-HC), Smt. Jyoti Kumari v. Asstt. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 60 (Karn) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2031 (Karn-HC).
FAVOUR : Partly in assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2004-05
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT