Case Law Details
Shri Pujala Mahesh Babu Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained investment sustained as assessee couldn’t explain the source of investment. Onus is on the assessee to explain the source of investment.
Facts-
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted in the Mansani group of cases on 20.11.2014 and the case of the assessee was also covered during which certain incriminating materials were seized. A survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 20.11.2014 during which certain documents were also impounded. In response to the notice u/s 153A, dated 22.12.2015, the assessee filed his return of income on 20.11.2016 declaring total income at Rs.3,85,860/-. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 29.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs.2,86,82,100/-.
In appeal, CIT(A), partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
