9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marriage. This aspect was examined by the lower authorities in the light of the human probability and came to the conclusion that the assessee does not belong to that family with such a status in which huge amount of ₹ 13.20 lakhs can be received as gift. Moreover, the assessee could not furnish any evidence with regard to the marriage performed at the relevant point of time. During the course of hearing, our attention was invited to the crucial dates on which this amount was received. The amount of ₹ 20 lakhs was deposited in the bank account of the assessee on 29.3.2010, another amount of ₹ 20,000/- was deposited on 29.3.2010 and an amount of ₹ 13 lakhs was deposited on 31.3.2010. The entire amount of ₹ 33.20 lakhs was deposited within a span of three days. During the course of hearing of the appeal the ld. counsel for the assessee was asked to furnish any evidence either in the form of photograph or invitation card with regard to the marriage of the assessee at the relevant point of time, but he could not file any evidence except oral submission. In the absence of any evidence, the story of marriage of the assessee at the relevant point of time can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. We, therefore, reject these grounds. 4. On merit only two issues are involved. One is with regard to the addition of ₹ 20 lakhs under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short the Act ) and the other is also an addition of ₹ 13.20 lakhs under section 68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief borne out from the record are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that there are cash deposits of ₹ 20 lakhs, ₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 13 lakhs on 29.3.2010, 30.3.2010 and 31.3.2010 respectively in the bank account of the assessee with UCO Bank. 6. In respect of source of ₹ 20 lakhs, it was submitted that the assessee is a Director of M/s Sewa Developers (P) Ltd. (Sewa) and the said amount was recovered by his from various parties who had received advances from the company. The amount was collected as per the instructions of its Managing Director and thereafter it was deposited in the assessee s bank account and later on it was transferred to the company s bank account. A list of 15 persons from whom ₹ 20 lakhs was collected was submitted. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invoked. In support of his contentions, the assessee has placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra reported in [20013] 33 taxmann.com 610 (Lko.). Reliance was also placed upon the following judgments:- 1. Baladin Ram vs. CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC). 2. CIT vs. S. C. Naregal, 16 taxmann.com 420 (Karnataka). 3. CIT vs. Manoj Indavadan Chokshi, 50 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat). 4. CIT vs. Taj Borewells, 291 ITR 232 (Mad.). 9. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has placed all the relevant evidence to explain the source of deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs in cash in his bank account. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has submitted that if the cash deposited in the bank account cannot be treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act on account of proper maintenance of books of account, the same amount can be added under section 69 of the Act, as the assessee could not explain the source of investment or deposit in the bank. In support of his contention, the ld. D.R. has placed reliance upon the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20 lakhs was found from the bank passbook of the assessee, therefore, provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for making addition of ₹ 20 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee. 12. We have also examined the argument raised by the ld. D.R. that in such type of cases where cash deposits are made in the bank accounts, the addition is possible under section 69 of the Act. In support of this contention, our attention as invited to the order of the Tribunal Special Bench comprising of five Members in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (supra), in which it has been held that section 68 of the Act may not be strictly applicable since the assessee has not maintained any books of account and the bank statement cannot be considered as the assessee s books of account. It is the onus of the assessee to explain the cash receipt by his and if there is no explanation or acceptable evidence to prove the nature or source of receipt, the amount may be added as assessee s income on general principle and it is not necessary to invoke section 68 of the Act nor it is necessary for the Income Tax Authorities to point out the source of money received. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company on behalf of the company, but no confirmation letter of these persons were filed. The assessee has filed copy of the company s account to corroborate his contentions but to explain the source of deposit, the assessee is required to place evidence or confirmation of the persons who has made payment to the assessee, but no evidence was filed in this regard. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has not discharged his onus which primarily lay upon him to explain the source of deposit. We accordingly find ourselves in agreement with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same. 16. So far as another deposit of ₹ 13.20 lakhs is concerned, we find that when the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to explain the source of these deposits, the assessee has taken a plea that he has received this much of amount as gift from various guests at the time of his marriage. This aspect was examined by the lower authorities in the light of the human probability and came to the conclusion that the assessee does not belong to that family with such a status in which huge amount of ₹ 13.20 lakhs can be received as gift. Moreover, the assessee could not furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
