Case Law Details
Ashish Sumatibhai Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmadabad)
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) in the context of the expression ‘may’ with reference to Section 69 of the Act observed that the word ‘may’ should not be read as ‘shall’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression ‘may’ indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 69 (similar to Section 68) was to confer a discretion on the Assessing Officer in the matter of treating the source of investment, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. In terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court, the Assessing Officer is not obliged to invoke Section 68/s.69 of the Act in every case where the explanation offered is found to be ‘unsatisfactory’ in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. In view of the overriding fact that loans so obtained stood re-paid through banking channel without any real advantage to the assessee, the onus cast upon the assessee is substantially discharged in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The action of Assessing Officer is thus set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer in terms of directions noted above.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-5/DCIT Cir.5(2)/725/2016-17 dated 24/10/2017 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 19/02/2016 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
