9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner and the Tribunal had categorically found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer had wrongly accepted that the amount was received by the assessee from S and D, because the fact was totally contrary to the stand taken by the assessee and the evidence and material produced by the assessee himself. The addition was justified. - 70 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2008 - SATISH KUMAR MITTAL and RAKESH KUMAR GARG JJ. Vinod S. Bhardwaj for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. Satish Kumar Mittal J.- The assessee has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated October 26, 2007, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o., Charkhi Dadri, it was revealed that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the said firm by cheque drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhiwani and source of such deposit was not verifiable from the return originally filed by the assessee. As such, due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the facts necessary for the assessment, the pro-ceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and a notice dated March 30, 2001, under section 148 of the Act was issued to him. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return showing the same income of Rs. 46,100, which was shown in the return originally filed by him. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was deposited by the assessee in cash. Therefore, on the basis of that reasoning, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 68,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax, while considering all these facts, came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has wrongly accepted the explanation with regard to an amount of Rs. 3,08,000 and, therefore, vide his order dated March 28, 2005, directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs. 3,08,000 being unexplained investment over and above the addition of Rs. 68,000 already made as income from undisclosed sources and further directed to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Against the aforesaid order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or not. Although the bank informed the Assessing Officer that the credits were received from S/Shri Surinder Sharma and Dinesh Kumar, the explanation of the assessee was not that the amounts were received from these persons. Thus, on the basis of the facts available on record of the Assessing Officer, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not merely not satisfactory but was also false. Such an evidence cannot be because of oversight or loss of memory because positive action was required on behalf of the assessee and the alleged creditors. In such a situation, the credits having been received from Shri Surinder Sharma and Dinesh Kumar could not have been accepted to be the explanation of the assessee, explaining the deposits in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
