Case Law Details
Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Indore)
Admittedly the appellant has received the amount in question and the amount is duly deposited in the bank account of the appellant and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits in his bank account and hence the investment in the bank deposit is not found to be satisfactorily explained and hence the addition can be confirmed u/s 69 of the Act.
From the finding of Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the explanation of the assessee was not found satisfactory on the basis that before advancing money to the assessee, there were cash deposits in the account of the creditors. However, Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the factum of earning of agricultural income. Therefore, inference that the entire amount was not belonging to the creditors would be fallacious. We therefore, looking into the facts and material available on records, hereby delete 50% of the addition of Rs. 17,51,000/-. The ground of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 23.1.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 20 13-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
