9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2,78,44,000 he has failed to remember a single name and address of the person on whose behalf he has carried out such Shri Ramishetty Nageswar Rao transaction or who has paid money to him - CIT(A) was not justified in accepting assessee's explanation with regard to cash deposits made in the bank account in absence of any supporting evidence by putting the onus on AO - When cash deposits are found in the bank account of the assessee, onus is on the assessee to prove the source of such deposits with adequate evidence - Merely, because AO did not find any other investment in the name of the assessee cannot be the only reason to conclude that deposits in the bank accounts do not belong to the assessee even in absence of any other supporting evidence - as the CIT(A) has deleted the addition without proper supporting evidence, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of claim – Decided in favour of revenue. - ITA No. 440/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2014 - Shri P. M. Jagtap And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri B. Rama Krishna For the Respondent : Shri Y.R. Rao ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, J. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier in course of the assessment proceeding, also submitted that he has no other income except what is declared in the return of income. Further, it was submitted that as there is a lapse of five years, assessee is Shri Ra mishetty Nageswar Rao not able to recall the details of individual buyers from whom the amounts were received. However, AO did not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee. AO observed that onus is on the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits in bank account. Since the assessee could not prove the source of cash deposit with supporting evidence, he treated the peak of deposit of ₹ 1,59,35,000 as unexplained income and added it to the income of assessee for the impugned AY. Being aggrieved of such addition, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The appeal preferred by assessee was dismissed by CIT(A) exparte by sustaining the addition made by AO. However, the order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside by the ITAT with a direction to pass fresh order after giving due opportunity of being heard to assessee. In consequence to the direction of ITAT, proceedings were again taken up by learned CIT(A) by issuing a notice to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which he was earning brokerage of 1 % on the amount transacted. Since, nothing contrary was brought on record by the AO, the contention of the appellant is acceptable that the entries were not belonging to him. It is a point to note here that closing balance as on 21.03.2005 was nil, which would strengthen the appellant that during the year under report, he has acted as a broker and at the end of the year, he left the business, as it was not lucrative. As admitted by the appellant 1 % commission on business transacted being ₹ 2,78,44,000/- (the turnover as reported in the return was ₹ 1,50,00,000/-, but as seen from bank transactions, the total transactions are at ₹ 2,78,44,000/-, which is taken here as turnover) the gross brokerage receipts should be ₹ 2,78,440/- on which expenses as incurred have to be allowed. It is learnt from the AR that it is a case where the appellant has not maintained any records for his brokerage business. Yet, the appellant has returned a loss of ₹ 75,000/-, which it appears, was not supported by evidences. Having held that loss sustained in brokerage business is not acceptable for the reasons that expenses incurred for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned CIT(A). 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other materials on record. Undisputedly, huge amount of cash aggregating to ₹ 2,67,35,000 was found to have been deposited in assessee's bank account. It is also a fact on record during the assessment proceeding apart from claiming that the amounts were received from the buyers of real estate to be given to the sellers of real estate which was temporarily parked in the bank account, assessee has not produced any other supporting evidence. In these circumstances, AO proceeded to treat the peak deposit as on 04/08/2004 amounting to ₹ 1,59,35,000 as unexplained income of assessee. As it appears from the order of CIT(A) only relying upon the version of the assessee, CIT(A) deleted the addition by accepting the claim that cash deposits were made out of the amounts received from buyers of real estate. However, assessee has not furnished any supporting evidence to substantiate such claim by way of confirmation letters either from the buyers of real estate or from the sellers. Assessee has not even furnished a single name and address of either bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
