2012 (11) TMI 388 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed investments assessee submitted that amount of Rs.15, 45, 000/- received from Manju Enterprises not considered as a source for making undisclosed investments Held that - During the course of search several slips relating to the deposit of cheques into the bank account of the concern M/s Manju Enterprises were found. The aggregate amount of the said deposits stood at Rs.15, 45, 000/-. The AO added the entire amount of Rs.15, 45, 000/- in the hands of the assessee in the original assessment order - AO has excluded both the unexplained deposits of Rs.15, 45, 000/- as well as the source of Rs.15, 45, 000/- from the computation of undisclosed income - except in the first assessment order passed on 29.11.1996 the net effect of computation pertaining to Rs.15, 45, 000/- was that the amount of Rs.15, 45, 000/- was never considered as the undisclosed income of the assessee - AO has properly dealt with the issue and rightly rejected the said claim of the assessee. Accordingly we dismiss all the grounds raised in this regard.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of amount received from Manju Enterprises as a source for undisclosed investments.
2. Consideration of bank loans obtained from Indian Overseas Bank and Federal Bank as a source for undisclosed investments.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin involved issues regarding undisclosed investments made by the assessee during the block period ending on 29.11.1995. The first issue raised was regarding the amount of Rs.15,45,000 received from Manju Enterprises, which the assessing officer did not consider as a source for undisclosed investments. The Tribunal noted that the AO had treated this amount as both an unexplained deposit and a source for investments and outgoings, resulting in no addition on account of this amount. The Tribunal, in its order dated 31.10.2003, remanded the matter back to the AO to establish a link between the deposits made in the bank account of Manju Enterprises and the assessee. The AO, in subsequent orders, excluded both the unexplained deposits and the source of Rs.15,45,000 from the computation of undisclosed income, resulting in no addition.

2. The second issue pertained to bank loans of Rs.3,00,000 and Rs.4,90,900 obtained from Indian Overseas Bank and Federal Bank, respectively, which the assessee claimed as sources for undisclosed investments. However, the Tribunal observed that these bank loans were not discussed in the assessment order dated 31.3.2005, against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal held that since the grounds related to these bank loans should have been raised in the appeal against the earlier assessment order dated 15.3.2000, the assessee could not raise them in the current appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the grounds related to the bank loans.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling against the inclusion of the amount received from Manju Enterprises as a source for undisclosed investments and rejecting the claim regarding bank loans as sources for undisclosed investments due to procedural reasons.