9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 26.5.2011, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is any request for adjournment. Therefore, the case was heard ex-parte and ld.CIT/DR was heard at length. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.3.1992 for assessment year 1999- 2000, declaring total income of Rs. 22,000/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s T.S.Subramaniya Chettiar and Sons, Panrutti, on 17.9.1992. During this survey it was found that the assessee had availed loans from the above firm. Consequent upon this survey proceedings, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 23.9.1993 at a total income of Rs. 13,03,640/-. Aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, confirm this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No.4. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to deletion of the loan amount taken from individual account of Shri Mayakrishnan, who is the Kartha of the Assessee-HUF. This credit was introduced in the earlier assessment year and was not related to this assessment year. This fact was verified from the copy of trial balance of the earlier year and the claim of the assessee was found to be correct. In this regard also, no material argument was advanced from the side of the Revenue. Therefore, we cannot disturb this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and hence, this ground also stands dismissed. 7. During the course of survey, it was found that M/s T.S.Subramania Chettiar and Sons had advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The question arose as to whether these incomes are to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, as individual or as HUF. The Assessing Officer found that the investments were not commensurate with the income returned by the assessee. He noticed that Smt. Neelavathy and Shri Mayakrishnan-HUF were assessed to income tax, but sons were not assessed. Shri M.Jayasankar was an agriculturist and Shri M.Ravichandran was only an MBBS student. Smt.Neelavathy and her sons did not have any independent sources of their income, to make such huge investments. The sources for the above investment were not fully explained by the assessee. To explain the sources of investments made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 4,49,153/-, the assessee enclosed a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19040 18110 10. Smt.Neelavathy is assessed to income tax from assessment year 1978-79 onwards. Her main source of income is from the sale of milk, interest income and chit commission. As regards details of sources for the investments in the name of assessee's family members, it was admitted that loans to the extent of Rs. 5,58,000/- were taken from M/s T.S.Subramania Chettiar and Sons, the details of which are as under: Date of loan Loan amount For investment in the name of 2-8-1989 Rs. 10,000 M. Ravichandran 25-11-1989 Rs. 60,000 " 28-11-1989 Rs. 1,00,000 " 1-8-1989 Rs. 40,000 M.Jayasankar 21-11-1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investment made by Smt. M. Neelavathi, assessee's wife 1,08,000 5. Unexplained gift in the name of mother of Smt. M. Neelavathi Ammal for the investment made by Smt. M. Neelavathi, assessee's wife 20,000 6. Agricultural income credited in the account of Smt.Neelavathi Ammal for the investment made by Smt. M. Neelavathi Ammal 37,150 7. Investmetn in the name of Shri M. Jaisankar 3,60,846 8. Investment in the name of Shri M. Ravichandran 2,84,024 13. The other grounds raised in this appeal are as under: "6. The CIT(A) erred in holding that Smt. Neelavathi Ammal had genuine. independent income since on enquiry it was found that she did not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
