9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 28,500. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Rs. 28,500: The first ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 28,500 was not pressed by the authorized representative of the assessee and thus, it was dismissed as not pressed. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 69: The main grievance of the assessee was against the order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 69 to the assessee's income. The facts of the case were that the assessee, an individual, had failed to file the return of income, leading to a notice under Section 148. During a search on 16th September 1986, it was found that the assessee had deposited Rs. 70,000 in New Bank of India, Sowcarpet Branch, and advanced two amounts of Rs. 25,000 each to an individual. The assessee filed confirmation letters from 12 persons for an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,12,000. However, the confirmation letters were not found during the search, and the assessee did not disclose these deposits and advances during the search. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the confirmation letters did not clarify whether the amounts were paid by cash or cheque and there were no entries in the account books regarding the borrowings and deposits. The assessee was unable to produce the creditors for examination, citing their location in Bangalore, and only one creditor was produced. The AO added Rs. 1,20,000 to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) deleted an addition of Rs. 10,000 but sustained an addition of Rs. 1,10,000. The assessee's representative could not show any source for Rs. 8,000, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the AO should have issued summons under Section 131 to verify the genuineness of the parties. The CIT(A) wrongly applied the decision of the Calcutta High Court in C. Kant & Co. vs. CIT, which relates to Section 68 and not Section 69. The assessee relied on decisions from the Patna High Court, which held that the onus shifts to the Revenue once the assessee provides the correct name, address, and GIR number of the creditor. The Departmental Representative argued that the onus to prove the source of undisclosed investment is on the assessee and cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting this view. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of investment. The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence or request the AO to issue summons under Section 131. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 69, as the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investments. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
