Case Law Details
Hema Haresh Mehta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that tally accounts produced before CIT(A) provides only better clarity and understanding of seized documents which are already on record before AO. Hence, submission of the same before CIT(A) doesn’t violate provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
Facts- In the assessment order, AO added the entire notingsas unexplained income as reflected in the seized material without referring to the nature of the same after reducing the duplicate entries and rough notings in the said seized materials.
After arriving at the peak credit for each year, CIT(A) reduced the revenue expenses incurred for the purpose of business for such years and remaining amount was confirmed. With respect to all the other entries including personal expenses, CIT(A) allowed telescoping of the entries reflected in the tally account. For entries which were not reflected in tally account, CIT(A) confirmed such additions.
In respect of peak credit additions and other miscellaneous additions, the assessee has preferred appeals before us and revenue has filed appeals against the relief provided by the ld CITA for various years.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
