9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of Rs. 28,000/- in South Indian Bank, unaccounted interest income of Rs. 4,052/- arising from the aforesaid fixed deposits and that of unexplained/poor drawings of Rs. 36,000/-, in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The assessee refers to her grounds and submits that her pleas at Nos.3 and 5 of unexplained deposits of Rs. 28,000/- and poor drawings addition of Rs. 36,000/- are not pressed. The Revenue does not oppose this contention. This leaves us with the remaining three issues. Rather two of them only as for unexplained fixed deposits and interest grounds are interconnected. 3. The assessee / an 'individual' is a money lender. She filed her return on 26.02.2011 admitting tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in the assessment order has stated that after examining the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has just narrated a suitable figure just to fit-in in order to explain the source of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer treated the explanation tendered by the assessee as not genuine, true and reasonable. Regarding the 1st cash deposit in the above S.B. Account amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs, the Authorized Representative submitted that an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- was returned by her husband Shri M.P. Nagarajan and there was an income of Rs. 20,000/- per month from April 2009 to August 2009 amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. From the available source of Rs. 4,90,000/- the assessee had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs. The Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is PARTLY ALLOWED." 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the relevant findings. The assessee produces her bank account statement from 18.09.2009 to 31.03.2010. She argues that the CIT(Appeals) has wrongly treated a peak credit of Rs. 6 lakhs instead of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is evident that peak credit in her account statement is Rs. 6,27,500/- as on 08.02.2010 instead of Rs. 6 lakhs. The assessee had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs on 18.09.2009. A sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- is stated to have been returned by her husband. The CIT(Appeals) does not reject veracity of this plea. It is further seen that the assessee had deposits a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as on 20.10.2009 over and above the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. Remaining amounts are corresponding dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer further referred to the assessee's accounts not declaring the aforesaid sum as gift. He also returned a finding that it was the assessee herself instead of her maternal grand father, who had deposited this amount into bank. All these materials made him to observe that the assessee's gift claim was not a genuine and bonafide one. The Assessing Officer quoted the assessee's failure to discharge onus of proving source of the impugned fixed deposit and made consequential addition of Rs. 3 lakhs u/s 69 of the Act. 7. The CIT(Appeals) has sustained the Assessing Officer's findings. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the case file. The assessee submits that neither of the authority below has summoned her maternal grand father. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
