9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - under section 68 of the Act as the assessee could not produce the donee but he merely furnished the affidavits of Smt. Vimlesh Sharma and Smt. Nirmala Sharma. When the mater went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the assessee has withdrawn a sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- from his capital account which was ₹ 69,60,694/- as on 01.04.1998 and the same were invested by the assessee during 04.05.1999 to 07.06.1999 for the purchase of the shares from M/s Cosmos Financial Services (P). Ltd. of M/s. Diamond Steels (P) Ltd. which were subsequently sold for ₹ 21,00,000/- on no profit and no loss basis and the cheques were deposited in the same bank account of State Bank of Patiala out of which the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.1999 from State Bank of India, SIB Branch, 38/4, Sanjay Place, Agra. Saving account 01190031102 CA 01000016558 (i) On perusal of the statement of account no.01190031102, it is seen that the following amounts have been transferred from the appellant's CA 01000016558 : 24.02.99 3,50,000 15.03.99 50,000 22.03.99 1,00,000 5,00,000 This amount is claimed as withdrawn and given to cosmos as under : Date Cheque No. Amount 24.02.1999 800502 50,000 27.02.1999 800503 1,00,000 03.03.1999 800504 1,00,000 06.03.1999 800505 50,000 11.03.1999 800506 50,000 15.03.1999 800507 50,000 22.03.1999 22.03.1999 1,00,000 Total 5,00,000 Thus the claim of the appellant that cash of ₹ 5,00,000/- was withdrawn from the savi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 5,00,000/- aggregating to ₹ 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 20,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act is not sustainable and consequently deleted. As regards the balance amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- paid for purchase of shares to M/s. Cosmos Financial Services P. Ltd., I am in agreement with the A.O. that the source of the said payment could not be proved to satisfaction by the appellant. However, since the payment pertains to AY 1999-2000, adverse implication thereof arises in that year. Even otherwise, since the impugned addition u/s.68 of the Act is only of ₹ 20,05,000/-, this discussion is only academic. - It is seen that an amount of ₹ 5,000/- has been deposited by the appellant in his bank account no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has gifted huge amount to the various persons. Neither it has been mentioned what relation the assessee had with the donees. Donees also did not appear before the assessing officer. The assessee has gifted the amount, the onus is on the assessee to prove the source of the amount to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. We noted that in this case the current account from which the withdrawal was made from 17.10.1998 to 24.03.1999 belonged to the business concern of the assessee. It has been claimed that this concern has withdrawn during this period a sum of ₹ 21,00,000/-. Merely the withdrawals are made in the business concern does not mean that the amount has been withdrawn by the assessee. The onus is on the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have submitted the Wealth Tax return which the assessee has not done. The A.O. asked the assessee to produce the cash book and the ledger for the F.Y. 1998-99 but the same were not produced. The Balance Sheet or the statement of affairs as on 31.03.1999 were also not produced so as to prove whether the assessee was having the cash in hand as on 31.03.1999. The assessee submitted copy of the bills in respect of the shares purchased and sold but no evidence or documents were filed whether the shares were transferred in the name of the assessee or not. Whether the private limited company M/s. Diamond Steels (P) Ltd. was intimated about the transfer of the shares in favour of the assessee. The assessee even did not point out how much income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
