Law:

Section:

I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1996-97 Investment in property could not be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 without considering assessee's explanation in that regard [In favour of assessee] The assessee approached the department for tax clearance certificate under section 230A to effect a registered mortgage in favour of a co-operative bank in connection with loan. The said certificate was issued. While processing the certificate under section 230A, the Assessing Officer made enquiry about the source of investment in the property. The assessee explained that the property was owned jointly by the assessee and his wife and was acquired from the money received from sale of wife's jewellery and from the amount saved by the assessee from his salary. The Assessing Officer did not consider assessee's explanation and made addition under section 69 as unexplained investment. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the addition. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Held that, the Tribunal ought to have considered the issue of joint ownership and without considering all the relevant materials, the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the addition. II. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1996-97 Mere rejection of assessee's explanation regarding investment in property which resulted in addition under section 69 as unexplained investment would not be ground for levying penalty [In favour of assessee] Section 69 is a deeming provision and the same cannot be extended to penalty proceedings. The department cannot presume that there is a concealment. There must be independent finding. Mere rejection of assessee's explanation regarding investment in property which resulted in addition under section 69 as unexplained investment would not be ground for levying penalty. CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Noorjahan (P.K.) (Smt.) [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC). T.N. Seetharaman for the Appellant. J. Naresh Kumar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. - The appellant has filed the above tax case appeals against…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492