Uday Vithal Nagpure Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- Assessee a resident individual, filed return of income on 28/03/2013 declaring total income of INR.1,51,860/-. Subsequently, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of Assessee. After taking into consideration the above submissions, the Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the Assessee had not only disclosed the source (i.e. Emperor Builder Pvt. Ltd.) but also the source of source as Lalitha Cement Ind. Limited. However, no information/details were called for by the Assessing Officer from Lalitha Cement Ind. Limited before making addition of INR.1,04,05,000/- in the hands of the Assessee. Given the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the additions of INR.73,20,000/-, INR.16,50,000/- and INR.1,04,05,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and are, therefore, set aside with the directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh after considering the documents/details forming part of the assessment record and the report received from the investigation wing.
