9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has shown opening balance of capital as on 01/04/2007 at ₹ 1,57,010/-. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the same along with the supporting documents regarding the source of opening capital and also to explain the source of ₹ 20,000/- introduced during this year. In reply, the assessee has furnished a copy of the capital account and has not provided any details regarding sources of fund. During the year, the assessee has shown cash deposit in his capital account of ₹ 20,000/- on 01/10/2007. No explanation has been given regarding the source of this cash deposit. Considering the facts, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) because the assessee could not establish the source of this credit appearing in the capital account of the assessee. Also neither before CIT(A) nor before us, the assessee could show that there was any source of house hold expenses during the first half year of the present previous year. Under these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue also. - Decided against the assessee. Addition on account of waste material - We find that before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the issue of assumption of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make assessment under section 153A could not have been raised in appeal and in further holding that the appeal was not maintainable on that issue. 2. BECAUSE the appellant had raised the issue of validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A in the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not have been treated to be the person in whose case search under section 132(1) had been initiated and the said ground going to the very root of the assessment order dated 28.17.2010 itself was maintainable and on a due consideration of material and information already on record, the said assessment order itself was liable to be declared as null and void. 3. At the very outset, Learned A.R. of the assessee fairly conceded that the issue involved in these grounds is covered against the assessee by a judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dr A. K. Bansal (Individual) [2013] 355 ITR 513 (All). 4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. As per the provisions of section 68, it is immaterial when during the F.Y. the credit is found to be made. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that the past income of the assessee was not so much as could leave any possible saving with the appellant as whatever amount was earned was utilized for household expenses. Even in the course of the appeal, the appellant has not satisfactorily explained the source of the capital introduced during the financial year. It is merely stated that a cheque no. 54377 dated 12.01.2007 of the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- was given to the assessee by his father Shri Chandra Bhal Tiwari and a copy of the confirmation claimed to be filed before the Assessing Officer was also filed however neither the creditworthiness of the creditor was established nor was it apparent whether the cheque was even encashed in the A.Y. 2007-08 as the copy of bank account was not filed. The father was also not assessed to tax. Hence, the grounds of appeal are rejected and the addition of ₹ 1,770,10/- made is hereby confirmed. 8.3.1 I have considered the ground of appeal, the order of the Assessing Officer and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it has to be accepted that the assessee has not offered any explanation regarding these credit entries. Before us also, the assessee has provided confirmation of his father and copy of assessee s bank account. The copy of bank account is appearing on page No. 41 of the paper book as per which it is seen that there is credit entry of ₹ 1,50,000/- on 13/01/2007 but there is debit entry of the same amount on 22/01/2007. In the absence of details regarding this debit entry, it cannot be accepted that this amount of ₹ 1.50 lac was existing with the assessee for investment in the partnership business of Shri Ram Agencies. Moreover, no evidence has been furnished regarding creditworthiness of the assessee s father. During the year, the assessee has shown cash deposit in his capital account of ₹ 20,000/- on 01/10/2007. No explanation has been given regarding the source of this cash deposit. Considering the facts, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) because the assessee could not establish the source of this credit appearing in the capital account of the assessee. 11. Regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and assessment made there under was liable to be declared as null and void. 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (based on the ground that no search under section 132(1) had been carried out in his case), having already been adjudicated upon by the Assessing Officer, the same could not have been raised in appeal before him and on that reasoning, in rejecting the appellant's plea to the validity of assessment order dated 28.12.2010 captioned as order under section 153A read with section 143(3) . 3. BECAUSE the issue went to the very root of the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 as had been impugned in the appeal before the Id. First Appellate Authority and on a due consideration of the same as also the material and information as was available on record, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order dated 28.12.2010 was void-ab-initio. 17. Both the sides agreed that the issues involved in these grounds are identical to the issue involved in ground Nos. 1 2 in assessment year 2008-09 and same can be decided on similar line. In that year, this issue was decided against the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the material found at the time of search is waste material or not cannot be verified at this stage and no such contention was raised earlier. Regarding the claim of ₹ 60 lac surrendered against stock, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that such surrender was made by him against the stock of Pal Pan Private Limited and in this manner, the Assessing Officer rejected both the explanations of the assessee and made the addition. On this issue, a clear finding is given by CIT(A) in Para 9.2.2 of his order that Shri K. N. Singh Patel is not related to the assessee and as per the provision of section 292C, the assessee was liable to explain the source of the stock found in his premises as he was the owner of the business. He has also given a finding that Shri K. N. Singh Patel has nowhere owned up the assets found in the premises of the assessee and no benefit of set off can be allowed against the amount surrendered by him as no such specific bifurcation appears to have been given by Shri K. N. Singh Patel. These findings of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned A.R. of the assessee and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
