2011 (11) TMI 774 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit - Held that - We find that the assessee referred to cash withdrawals of ₹ 27 lacs. However, we find that no such plea was raised before either of the authorities below and the in the statement recorded during the assessment proceedings when confronted about the receipt of amounts from two purchasers, the assessee had replied vide question No.21 that negotiations were going on in respect of the said refund/forfeiture of the amount received from the said purchasers. In his written submissions the assessee claimed to have refunded the said amount in 2005 and the assessment order in the case was passed on 30.12.2008. Further the assessee has failed to furnish on record any evidence to prove its contention. In the absence of the same we find no merit in the stand of the assessee and rejecting the same we uphold the order of CIT (Appeals) and confirm the addition of ₹ 20 lacs. Similarly in respect of receipt of ₹ 21,53,000/- the assessee has failed to establish its claim of receipt of money. The said amount was deposited in cash in the account of the assessee on various dates. Though the assessee has referred to an agreement to sell but the clauses of the said agreement were found to be at variance with the facts of the case. In the absence of any evidence being filed by the assessee, we confirm the addition Addition on deposits through account payee cheque in the bank - Held that - No such evidence was referred to before the authorities below. Further the assessee has failed to file any confirmation or any bank account in order to prove the source of credit entries in his bank account. The onus not being discharged by the assessee we find no merit in the claim of the assessee and hence the same is rejected. Addition from HDFC Bank and deposit of that amount with Centurion Bank in correct perspective - Held that - The assessee before the authorities below had failed to file any confirmation from his son in respect of the loans received of ₹ 1,20,000/-. The assessee failed to furnish the bank account to establish the creditworthiness of son of the assessee. Merely because the amount has been received by way of cheque does not satisfy the provisions of the Statute in respect of the cash credits received by the assessee during the year. The onus not having been discharged by the assessee in respect of deposits in the bank account, the deeming provs sof section 68 are applicable. We find no merit in the ground of appeal raised by the assessee and hence the same is dismissed. Addition to the total income without appreciating the facts and written-submissions made during the assessment proceedings - Held that - Even before us the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence/confirmation in respect of its claim of having received earnest money. In the absence of the same, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground raised by the assessee. Deposit in bank unexplained - Held that - We are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in the absence of the assessee having furnished any evidence and having failed to discharge its onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the impugned order.
2. Addition of Rs. 21,53,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.
3. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited through account payee cheque.
4. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- from HDFC Bank.
5. Addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- given by the son of the assessee.
6. Addition of Rs. 50,000/- without proper evidence.
7. Addition of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- as unexplained deposits.
8. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as undisclosed interest income.
9. General grounds concerning the assessed income and procedural errors.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Impugned Order:
The assessee's ground that the impugned order is against facts, law, and without jurisdiction was dismissed as it was general in nature.

2. Addition of Rs. 21,53,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noted various deposits in the assessee's bank accounts and required an explanation for the source. The assessee claimed these amounts were received from two different individuals through agreements to sell property. However, the AO found discrepancies and contradictions in the agreements and the assessee's statements. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the AO's view, concluding that the assessee's story was concocted to justify the deposits, and confirmed the addition of Rs. 21,53,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources.

3. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- Deposited Through Account Payee Cheque:
The assessee claimed this amount was transferred from PNB, Dehradun. However, the CIT (Appeals) found no such transfer in the bank statements. The assessee's attempt to provide new evidence before the Tribunal was not accepted as it was not presented to the authorities below. The addition was confirmed due to the failure to discharge the onus of proving the source.

4. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- from HDFC Bank:
The assessee claimed this amount was from cash withdrawals of Rs. 8,50,000/- from HDFC Bank. The AO observed that the same amount was re-deposited, making the source unexplained. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this view. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea and restored the issue to the AO for verification.

5. Addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- Given by the Son of the Assessee:
The assessee claimed this amount was received from his son through account payee cheques. The AO added the amount back due to the lack of confirmation or evidence. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this addition, noting the failure to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal agreed, dismissing the ground.

6. Addition of Rs. 50,000/- Without Proper Evidence:
The AO found contradictions in the assessee's explanations regarding this deposit. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition due to the lack of evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground as the assessee failed to provide any confirmation or evidence.

7. Addition of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- as Unexplained Deposits:
The AO found these deposits unexplained as the assessee could not provide satisfactory explanations or evidence. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the additions. The Tribunal agreed, noting the failure to discharge the onus of proving the source.

8. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Undisclosed Interest Income:
The AO estimated the interest income due to the non-disclosure by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this estimation. The Tribunal agreed, noting the assessee's failure to provide the requisite information.

9. General Grounds Concerning the Assessed Income and Procedural Errors:
The assessee's general grounds regarding the assessed income and procedural errors were dismissed as they were found to be general in nature without specific merit.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- being restored to the AO for verification, while other additions were confirmed. The order was pronounced in the open court on November 25, 2011.

← Previous Next →