9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factual position of the case. 3. Lower authorities have grossly erred in/confirming addition of ₹ 439800 in returned income of the appellant on the basis of deposits made by appellant in the bank from confirmed/known/own sources. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). It came to the notice of the AO that the assessee contributed capital of ₹ 13.00 lakhs in the firm of M/s Dhankot Filling Station. In view thereof, reasons were recorded and notice was issued u/s 148 to assess the income of this year. In response to the notice, return of income was filed declaring total income of ₹ 9,630/-. 2.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of the capital introduced, as mentioned above. The assessee was also requested to produce the books of account. It was submitted that the assessee has not maintained any book of accounts. The transactions are reflected in the bank account, a copy of which was produced. Statements of S/Shri Suresh Kumar Chaudhary and Krishan Kumar were also recorded on oath u/s 131 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 20,000/ 10.01.2005 vi) ₹ 1,00,000/ 14.01.2005 3.1 It was further submitted that the assessee had taken a loan of ₹ 1.00 lakh from Shri Satish Kumar, cousin, by way of cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Gurgaon. The confirmation letter, bank account and PAN card copies were enclosed. If these evidences are taken into account, it was argued that the money deposited in the bank account on various dates stands explained. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence to the AO and obtained the remand report. It may be mentioned here that the assessee also challenged the validity of proceedings u/s 147. The AO, in his report, mentioned that the admitted position is that the assessee had not been filing the return of income. It is for this reason that notice u/s 148 was issued. Coming to the addition, it was mentioned that a large number of opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the source of ₹ 13.00 lakhs contributed as capital. The assessee did not furnish any explanation in regard thereto, but only submitted that she had no source of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46-A as mere oversight is not a ground mentioned in the rules. Therefore, the additional evidence in this regard was not accepted and the addition of ₹ 1.00 lakh was confirmed. In respect of the balance addition of ₹ 3,39,800/-, it was mentioned that although there are withdrawals from the bank account, but their nexus with the deposits has not been proved. Therefore, the addition of 3,39,800/- was also upheld. 4. Before us, the ld. counsel drew our attention towards the reasons recorded on 27.4.2007 u/s 147, which read as under:- During the course of assessment proceedings of M/s Dhankot Filling Station, village Dhankot for the assessment year 2005-06, it has been observed that assessee has introduced ₹ 13,00,000/- towards capital as partner in the firm M/s Dhankot Filling Station, Vill. Dhankot. Further, the saving bank account of the assessee with State Bank of India, New Colony, Gurgaon have a number of high value transactions. Assessee has not submitted any evidence in the course of assessment proceedings of firm in respect of source of funds invested in firm. In light of above, I have reasons to believe that an income amounting to ₹ 13,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The facts are sufficient to arrive at a reasonable belief. Therefore, the ratio of various cases cited by the assessee that reason to suspect is not enough or distinguishable. This is also not a case where the AO wanted to make further enquiry. It is a case where he arrived at a tentative belief, based on facts on record, that income escaped assessment. It is also not correct as argued before the lower authorities that in a situation like this the amount should have been assessed in the hands of the firm. The reason is that the assessee is a partner, an identifiable person. It has been clearly held out that she contributed the capital and, therefore, the AO rightly proceeded to take action u/s 147 in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 5. Coming to the merits, an addition of ₹ 1.00 lakh was made in respect of deposit in the bank account on 1.7.2005. This is explained to be the loan from Shri Satish Kumar. The case of the ld. counsel is that confirmation of the loan was filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who had obtained remand report of the AO in respect of this loan. However, the evidence was not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) as none o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 250,100 10-Jan-05 20,000 - 270,100 14-Jan-05 100,000 - 370,100 28-Feb-05 - 49,900 320,200 10-Mar-05 - 40,000 280,200 11-Mar-05 - 40,000 240,200 12-Mar-05 - 20,000 220,200 14-Mar-05 - 45,000 175,200 15-Mar-05 - 45,000 130,200 17-Mar-05 - 10,000 120,200 Total: 390,000 339,800 6.1 It was his case that the monies were deposited out of withdrawals made from the bank account. In reply, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
