Income-tax Officer v. Batuk Vithalabhai Donga – [2023]
While submitting the income tax return, the assessee, an individual, claimed a deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act. In the assessment processes, the assessee was unable to provide any evidence or specifics regarding this deduction. As a result, the Assessing Officer (AO) added to the assessee’s income by invoking section 69A and computing the assessee’s tax payable at a higher rate in accordance with section 115BBE.
Assessee decided to appeal to the CIT after being dissatisfied by the order (A). The dispute was subsequently brought before the Rajkot Tribunal after the CIT(A) upheld the changes made by the AO.
According to the Tribunal, Section 69A only applicable when the assessee is discovered to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery, or another valuable item that is not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee makes no attempts to clarify the nature and exact circumstances the acquisition of such money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable items.
The provisions of section 69A are not applicable to this case since the AO did not specifically determine that the assessee had any unaccounted-for money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuables in his possession. Accordingly, by relying on the provisions of section 69A in relation to an improper claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act, the AO had committed mistakes of fact and law.
In light of the disallowance for improper claim under section 80G of the Act, AO is unable to calculate tax payable under section 115BBE of the Act.
