9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the account of one Deepak Gupta and issued by the Bank. There was of course account of one Leela Dhar in the said Bank, who was contacted by the Department in the enquiry but that Leela Dhar stated that he never entered into such a transaction with the appellant-assessee. The authorities below also took serious note of the fact that there were transactions running into more than 40 crores in the account of said Deepak Gupta. Seriousness of such transaction was under investigation of the Department of Income Tax and ultimately it was found that the Bank has been closed by the Reserve Bank of India because of the shady deals in which the said Bank was indulging. There is no illegality committed by the authorities below in holding that the assessee routed undisclosed income in his capital account as forfeited amount, and thus added the amount in his income for the assessment year in question. The assessee is giving different addresses in the returns and Ward/Circles etc. shown are different and incomplete, there is no evidence of filing these returns as from the photocopy, stamp of the Department is not legible. Further enquiry had revealed that B-29, Som Dutt Chamber, Bhika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before CIT (Appeals) and filed certain documents to justify the entry of Rs. 2,50,000/- in his capital account. The Appellate Authority called for the remand report from AO. On examination of remand report and the proceedings conducted by AO, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2005 (Annexure A-2). The order of authorities below was challenged before ITAT and it was contended that the Department might have contacted another Leela Dhar whereas the appellant was in a position to produce the said person even now. In view of these facts, the Tribunal formed an opinion that one more opportunity be provided to the appellant-assessee to produce Leela Dhar Gupta before AO, who was directed to examine whether Leela Dhar Gupta was an existing person or not and to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the transaction. The matter was remitted to AO for fresh adjudication vide order of ITAT dated 05.07.2007 (Annexure A-3) with a direction that due opportunity be given to the appellant-assessee, who was also at liberty to produce evidence, if any, to substantiate his plea. 4. It may be noted that there was another addition under the head agricultural income, but on that matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n not giving the assessee with an opportunity of cross-examining the person on whose statement the department has relied is violative of the principles of natural justice as held in the case of CIT v/s Sanjeev Kumar Jain, (2009) 300 ITR 178, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iv) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in making the addition on the basis that the assessee had not shown the source of his funds despite the fact that the assessee was not under any obligation/duty to explain the source of the amount is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (v) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in not considering the position of law that the said amount shall be brought to tax at the time of sale of the said land by virtue of the provisions of section 51 of the Act and therefore the whole exercise being revenue neutral is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the departmental authorities would lead to an adverse inference being drawn against the department regarding the account from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deepak Gupta. Seriousness of such transaction was under investigation of the Department of Income Tax and ultimately it was found that the Bank has been closed by the Reserve Bank of India because of the shady deals in which the said Bank was indulging. 11. The appellant-assessee has tried to take advantage of the subsequent information which he tried to obtain from the Department of Income Tax as to what happened with the said investigation, but no concrete information was given, but that cannot even be entertained for considering it to be a substantial question of law. 12. The following facts can be noted:- (i) When the appellant-assessee was asked to explain the entry of Rs. 2,50,000/- in his capital account for the assessment year in question, the appellant-assessee placed reliance upon an agreement to sell. (ii) The agreement that was produced was entered with Leela Dhar Gupta son of Chandgi Ram. (iii) It was found as a matter of fact that the particulars of demand draft vide which payment under the said agreement was made, was from the account of one Deepak Gupta, whose account with the Bank was found to be shady. (iv) Despite every effort to trac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is giving different addresses in the returns and Ward/Circles etc. shown are different and incomplete, for example: 'for the Asstt. Year 2002-03, it is 26(3), and for the Asstt. Year 2003-04, it is 24 N.D.'. Further, there is no evidence of filing these returns as from the photocopy, stamp of the Department is not legible. Further enquiry had revealed that B-29, Som Dutt Chamber, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, is an incomplete address. The assessee, therefore, cannot say that he had proved the identity of Sh. Leela Dhar Gupta. 16. We may notice the judgment of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. United Trading and Construction Co., (2001) 247 ITR 819 (SC) that there is nothing in Section 24 of the Finance (no. 2) Act which prevents the Income Tax officer, if he is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of sources of amounts found credited in his books to add them to the assessee's income amount in spite of these having already been made the subject matter of the declaration made by the depositors/creditors. This point, thus, also goes against the appellant. 17. With the above findings, the appellant cannot possibly rely upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
