The Tribunal observed that action of AO defies the taxability of concept of real income. It is an undisputed fact that in the alleged sheets of bank deposits received from the French government under DTAC, there is no mention of any interest paid by bank to the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed revenue appeal and held that it is illogical to compute interest and that too at the rate prevailing in India as there is no documentary evidence to support the presumption of the AO. The Tribunal on examination of the computation of income for AY 2007-08 observed that once the assessee had returned the undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon there should not be any quarrel to bifurcate the disclosed amount in two assessment years when tax rate in both the assessment years is the same and there is no loss to the revenue. The Tribunal deleting addition held that there is no merit in bifurcating the income in two assessment years when the assessee had paid taxes. Making the addition of same income in two assessment years amounts to double taxation. (AY. 2006-07 to 2012-13)
ACIT v. Krishan Lal Madhok (2021) 213 TTJ 734 / 206 DTR 123 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Addition at rate of 4% assuming saving bank account interest rate earned on bank balances with HSBC, Geneva-Illogical to compute interest rate prevailing in India as there was no documentary evidence to support presumption of AO-Same amount taxed twice in two assessment years amounts to double taxation deleted addition. [S. 153A]