2013 (3) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Additions - Evidence - assessee claim that amount found during search belong to others - held that - Although three persons were eventually produced who did not confirm the say of the appellant. - With regard to the sum of Rs.5,35,000/-, it was also not revealed that as to why the amount which was said to have belonged to M/s. Ohm Developers continued to lie with the appellant at his residence. Tribunal found no ground to sustain the order of the CIT(Appeals) and by reversing the same, it upheld the order of Assessing Officer and added the entire cash amount of Rs.6,77,450/- to the income of the appellant. - Nothing is pointed out to assail the positive findings of Assessing Officer and that of Tribunal. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 5,35,000/- confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in the hands of the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, regarding the addition of Rs. 5,35,000/- without sufficient evidence. The appellant contended that the amount belonged to M/s. Ohm Developers and had been adjusted against their tax demand by the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal found no grounds to sustain the order of the CIT(A) and added the entire cash amount of Rs. 6,77,450/- to the appellant's income, rejecting the appellant's explanations and confirming the addition.

2. During the search at the appellant's residence, cash amounting to Rs. 6,77,450/- was found, with the appellant claiming that Rs. 5,35,000/- belonged to M/s. Ohm Developers and the rest to his wife. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation due to lack of evidence and added the entire amount to the appellant's income. The CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 1,42,450/- but deleted the amount of Rs. 5,35,000/-, leading to a challenge by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to provide substantive proof or establish the creditworthiness of the transaction, as the addresses of the loan recipients were not produced. Despite the appellant's claims, no satisfactory explanation was given as to why the amount allegedly belonging to M/s. Ohm Developers was found at the appellant's residence. The Tribunal, therefore, reversed the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to add the entire cash amount to the appellant's income.

4. The appellant's counsel attempted to support the CIT(A)'s order, but no material was presented to challenge the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. The court found no perversity or error in the Tribunal's decision, stating that the case did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

5. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to add the disputed amount to the appellant's income, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence and failure to establish the source of the cash, thereby dismissing the appeal.