9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and he was out of country, the amount remitted by the Sangat being in the form of foreign exchange, after encashment was deposited in his bank account, which latter was returned to the person by cheque - assessee has tried to explain the source of money deposited in his bank account, without evidence - Mere explanation is not sufficient to discharge the onus cast upon him under the Act - the assessee has not established the veracity of his explanation - the affidavit of a third person is mere self-serving evidence unless the same is backed by some other evidence justifying the nature of the transaction or the concerned party appears in person to verify its contents – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld and as such no substantial quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upholding the order of A.O., under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where no evidence is on record to prove income but payment to aforesaid third party is an admitted fact? C. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the ITAT are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law so that so the impugned addition of Rs.11,26,000/- on account of donations by Sangat and interest of Rs.39,411/- is bad in law and needs deletion? 2. The facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the present appeal may be noticed. The assessee who is engaged in Glass business filed his return for the assessment year 2005-06 on 9.3.2006 declaring the income at Rs. 97,500/-. The said return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged on behalf of learned counsel for the assessee-appellant that Baba Ji could not be produced earlier for cross-examination as he was out of India but could be produced now and the inference drawn on that basis was unjustified. 5. The Assessing Officer and the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence had concluded that Rs. 11,26,000/- collected on behalf of Baba Balwinder Singh from the sangat of UK by way of donation was not genuine. The assessee could not produce Baba Balwinder Singh to establish the genuineness of the alleged donation and, therefore, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal was justified. The Tribunal while upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer had recorded as under:- 9. On care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO ordered the assessee to produce the deponent, namely, Balwinder Singh for cross-examination but Balwinder Singh was not produced before him. It is well settled that if the party fails to produce the deponent for cross-examination despite the order of the Court, affidavit of the deponent filed in the Court has to be ignored. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the AO has rightly not attached any credibility to the affidavit for the reasons that the circumstances surrounding the case are completely inconsistent with what is stated in the affidavit. There is no evidence on record to establish that Balwinder Singh was at all appointed Sewadar of Gurdwara by an authority competent to appoint Sewadar in a Gurdwara. 10. Under the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
