9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the failure of the assessee to properly explain the bank transactions. It is the responsibility of the assessee to show that the said amount was available with him and it was kept idle for more than nine months. Hence, income declared by the assessee for the AY 1997-98 to 2002-03 cannot be considered as a source for the amount of Rs.65.00 lakhs seized by the police officials - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - I.T.(SS)A.No. 33/Coch/2006 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, AND B.R.BASKARAN, JJ. Assessee by Shri T.N.Seetharaman, Adv. Revenue by Shri K.K. John, Sr.DR O R D E R Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kochi and it relates to the block period from 01-04-1996 to 23-12-2002. 2. The assessee is assailing the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,12,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and also his decision in enhancing the income by Rs. 65.00 lakhs. 3. The facts relating to the above said issues are stated in brief. The assessee herein is not regularly assessed to income tax. He had filed his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by him, but he could not furnish the names of either the buyers or the sellers. Hence the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee that these transactions represent business transactions. Since the deposits were by way of H.O. advice , the AO rejected the assessee s offer of peak credit thereof and treated the entire deposits of Rs. 2,62,15,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Since the assessee had already offered a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs in his block return, the AO added Rs.2,12,15,000/- to the income disclosed by the assessee. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition of bank deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) issued notice of enhancement to the assessee as he took the view that the cash of Rs.65.00 lakhs seized by the police should be assessed separately, for the reason that the aggregate income declared in the block return could not be considered as a source for the cash seized by the police. The Ld CIT(A) also pointed out the contradictory stands taken by the assessee with regard to the deposits found in his bank accounts, i.e., before the DDI he had stated that he has undertaken the activity of trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the deposits made in the bank accounts. Initially, the assessee has stated that he has acted as an agent to transfer the funds from Mumbai to Kerala through his bank account. Later, during the course of assessment proceedings, he has changed the stand and stated that he was carrying on trading in gold biscuits. However, the fact remains that the assessee has failed to substantiate both the stands which are contradictory to each other. The assessee has also failed to furnish any of the details with regard to the deposits made in the bank accounts. In these circumstances, the tax authorities had no other option, but to assess the entire deposits as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is no proof with the assessee to show that the amount declared over the years has remained with him in cash only, which can be considered as source for the cash of Rs.65.00 lakhs seized by the police. 9. In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the very fact that the assessee does not possess assets equivalent to the income determined as undisclosed income shows that the undisclosed income has been determined unreasonably. 10. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pear to be true for the following reasons:- (a) If the assessee had really carried on trading in gold biscuits, he could have at least tried to reconcile the quantity details of gold vis-a-vis the deposits found in the bank accounts. (b) Presuming for a moment that the deposits represent sale value of gold, we notice that the deposits are always in lakhs that too in round figures, which would not be so in practical situations. There is also wide variation between two deposits, which would not be normally so if the assessee is carrying on trading activity. (c) From the copy of the three bank accounts placed in the paper book, we notice that the assessee has received an aggregate deposit of Rs. 1.23 crores in the month of December, 2001. Even if the initial deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs each (Total Rs.24.00 lakhs) received in Account Nos. 34 and 11804 is considered as the capital of the assessee, it does not commensurate with the amount declared by the assessee in his block return, i.e., up to 31-03-2001. The assessee has declared only a sum of Rs. 8.00 lakhs only as undisclosed income. (d) In the month of December, 2001, we notice deposits of Rs.25.00 lakhs and Rs.50.00 lakhs, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash flow statement , only after finalising the block return. It is not a case, where the assessee has prepared the Cash flow statement and offered the deficit amount as his income. In the cash flow statement, he has also shown receipt of Rs.3.00 lakhs in the financial year 2000-01 and Rs.2.00 lakhs in the financial year 2002-03 from his brother with the narration Receipts from brother Hussain as share in Business . Neither the assessee has explained nor the AO has questioned about the nature of business mentioned in the narration. Thus, in our view, one cannot give much credence to the cash flow statement prepared by the assessee, as it is found to be a self serving one and not supported by any regular books of accounts/documents. It is also hard to believe that the income of Rs.1.00 lakh each declared in the years relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were available with the assessee on 21.12.2002, i.e., after a gap of several years. Similar is the case with the income of Rs.2.00 lakhs each declared for the years relevant to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. With regard to the declaration of peak credit amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs, we have to state that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
