\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Assessing Officer treated the difference between the quantity of shares sold and purchased during the year as unexplained investment. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the balance shares formed part of the assessee’s opening stock. As the Revenue failed to disprove the existence of the opening stock, the addition under section 69 was deleted. The Assessing Officer made additions on the basis of information obtained from companies, the Custodian and other sources without furnishing the material to the assessee. The Tribunal held that no addition can be sustained on the basis of material collected behind the assessee’s back without affording an opportunity to rebut the same. The relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. The Assessing Officer made an addition solely on the basis of loose papers allegedly reflecting investments in shares. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of share certificates, broker confirmations, money trail or any evidence linking the investments with the assessee, loose papers by themselves could not justify an addition under section 69. The addition was deleted. The Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts reflected in multiple bank accounts as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that where the deposits were duly recorded in the books of account and represented business transactions, only the income element, if any, could be brought to tax. Entire bank deposits could not be assessed as unexplained income under sections 68 or 69A. The addition was deleted. <\/strong>CIT(A) was not justified in relying on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on scam, when the assessee was explaining specific transactions of deposit-addition was deleted. \u00a0\u00a0Bonds registered in Assessee\u2019s name by order of Special Court. Assessing Officer\u2019s computation of accrued interest as assessee\u2019s income was sustained. As regards surrender of Income, addition was directed to be deleted even if reassessed income was lower than sum surrendered.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (AY. 1992-93).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \nS. 69: Unexplained investments- Search assessment-Sale of shares-Opening stock ignored by Assessing Officer-Addition for unexplained investment deleted.- Addition based on material collected behind assessee’s back-No opportunity of rebuttal-Addition deleted- Loose papers-No corroborative evidence of investment-Addition deleted- Bank deposits recorded in books-Entire deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income- CIT(A) was not justified in relying on Joint Parliamentary Committee on scam, when the assessee explaining specific transactions of deposit-addition was deleted- Bonds registered in Assessee\u2019s name by order of Special Court. Assessing Officer\u2019s computation of accrued interest as assessee\u2019s income was sustained.- Surrender of Income-Addition was directed to be deleted even if reassessed income lower than sum surrendered. ( [S. 4, 68, 69A, 132,132(4), 139, Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gze","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63688"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63689,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63688\/revisions\/63689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}