9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties to the assessee commencing from 30/06/2005 to 14/01/2011. The order was passed by the CIT(A) on 10/02/2011. In this context, it is pertinent to add here that any authority including the Revenue authority is not expected to afford endless opportunities to a recalcitrant assessee, to motivate him to make compliance with the necessary requirements of the notice, issued to him. The concept of natural justice contemplates that no party should be condemned unheard. However, the concept of natural justice cannot be extended to an absurd limit of affording endless opportunity, to an assessee, who is not willing to avail of such opportunities. The concept of natural justice is relevant for both the parties. In view of the facts of the case and having regard to the eight opportunities afforded by the CIT(A), an highlighted earlier (the details of such opportunities are incorporated in appellate order of CIT(A) at page 1.), the ground of appeal, raised by the assessee, is without any merit and substance and hence the same is dismissed. 5. In Ground No. 2, the assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit. It was furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 25/03/2004, the assessee filed an affidavit stating that the persons from whom the cheques were received, are not traceable. As the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transactions and could not explain the credit entries of Rs.50,000/- each, a sum of Rs.2 lakh was added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A), on appreciation of the finding of the Assessing Officer and the submission made by the assessee, upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant observations made by the CIT(A), as contained in para 3 of his order, are reproduced hereunder: "The facts of the case as well as statement of facts/ground of appeal filed by the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the A.O. had added the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that addresses furnished by the appellant in respect of cash creditors were found false on verification and none of the creditors existed at the given addresses. During the course of appellate proceedings also the appellant has not been able to furnish the addresses of the creditors even though according to the appellant they were family friends of father of the appellant. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r High Courts have clearly held that affidavits are not sacrosanct unless duly corroborated by independent evidences. This well settled proposition is duly supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision, in the case of Sri Krishna Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [1983] 142 ITR 618 (All). The relevant and operative part of the decision is reproduced hereunder: "It is neither a rule of prudence nor a rule of law that statements made in an affidavit which remains uncontroverted, must invariably be accepted as true and reliable. Ordinarily, in the absence of the denial, the statements may be accepted as true but if there are circumstances which suggest that the statements on affidavit should not be accepted as true, the absence of denial by the other side, would not by itself be sufficient to clothe the statements on affidavit with truthfulness and reliability." 11. In view of this, the sanctity of the affidavit, filed by the assessee, patently uncorroborated by any evidence, cannot be accepted as having any legal consequence. The assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast on him, within the meaning of section 68 of the Act as also under the general law. It is a well settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Vs Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra), has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), which the learned A.R. relied upon to support his contention. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) has considered the decision of Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra). The facts of the decisions relied upon by learned 'A.R.' are different and distinguishable and, hence, the decision is of no aid, to the assessee. In the case of Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) the addition was made on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the alleged cash creditors. In the present case, the assessee himself admitted non-traceability of such cash creditors. Even no confirmation letters were filed by the assessee. Learned A.R., further, placed reliance in the case of Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 256 ITR 331(Raj), wherein the addition was made u/s 68 of the Act on the ground of failure of the assessee to produce cash creditors. The Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the finding of CIT(A), are upheld. 13. In the course of present appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the ground No. 3 is not pressed, therefore, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 14. In respect of ground No. 4, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,000/- out of staff welfare. The Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.1,000/- out of staff welfare expenses claimed at Rs.3,915/- being expenses of unverifiable nature. This disallowance has been made in the computation of income without giving any finding, whatsoever, by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance is founded on surmises and conjectures, as the same has not been supported by any evidence. In view of this, the disallowance upheld by CIT(A) is deleted and this ground is allowed. 15. In ground No. 5, the assessee contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,490/- in respect of car running expenses. In ground No. 6 it is contended by the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.8,074/- out of depreciation on car. The Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
