9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 1st April, 2006 and before the date of her demise (that is, 14th August, 2006). Apart from the fact that the Assessee provided no material to substantiate the aforesaid contention, it is also relevant to note that the cash was claimed to be Late Smt. Saroj Gupta's "Cash of my Istridhan" and thus unless invested would not increase with efflux of time. The ITAT described the explanation provided by the Assessee as “fantastic”. We concur with the view that the aforesaid explanation is wholly unsustainable and was rightly rejected by the ITAT. Admittedly, Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had also not disclosed any cash-in-hand other than under her proprietorship concerns. The Assessee's contention that Late Smt Saroj Gupta was not required to disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereafter ' the Act') impugning an order dated 18th June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') in ITA No.4085/Del/2012 pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The said appeal, ITA No. 4085/Del/2012, was filed by the Revenue assailing an order dated 31st May, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] allowing the appeal of the Assessee and deleting an addition of ₹ 13,01,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained cash credit. 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to cash deposits aggregating ₹ 13,01,012/- which were made by the Assessee in his bank accounts on various dates during the Financial Year (FY) 2007-08. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entory of the assets was made. The assets in the locker included cash amounting to ₹ 15,06,800 and jewellery. In terms of the Will, the jewellery was handed over to the Assessee's wife and the cash of ₹ 15,06,800/- was handed over to the Assessee. 5. The AO called upon the Assessee to file evidence of Income tax Returns, Balance sheets and Statement of affairs of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta as on 31st March, 2005, 31st March, 2006 and 14th August, 2006. The AO noted that the Assessee did not file the Statement of affairs as on 31st March, 2005 and 31st March, 2006. However, copies of the balance sheet of the proprietorship concerns of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta, namely, M/s Satyam Investments and M/s Mahajan Investments and Financial Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instruments; the fact that the almirah where the cash was stated to have been found, was claimed to have been opened after a gap of around six months from the demise of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta. The ITAT further noted that the almirah of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta was stated to have been opened by the executor (who was the husband of the deceased) in the presence of witnesses (which included the daughter of the deceased) and the detailed inventory which was stated to have been made. The ITAT observed that there was no contest as to the bequest of the deceased and in the circumstances, there was no occasion for the executor to take six months to open the almirah located at his residence. Taking all the facts into consideration, the ITAT was of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly erroneous or perverse. 10. At this stage, it may be relevant to note certain undisputed facts and the explanations furnished by the Assessee. First of all, it is not disputed that Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had not filed a wealth tax return in respect of her net wealth as on 31st March, 2006 which would be mandatory if she possessed cash to the extent as claimed by the AO. The Assessee had sought to explain non-filing of the wealth tax return by asserting that the cash available with Late Smt. Saroj Gupta on 31st March, 2006 was only ₹ 13,31,800/- and the remaining amount of ₹ 1.75 lacs was received by her after 1st April, 2006 and before the date of her demise (that is, 14th August, 2006). Apart from the fact that the Assessee p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had also not disclosed any cash-in-hand other than under her proprietorship concerns. The Assessee's contention that Late Smt Saroj Gupta was not required to disclose her cashin- hand is difficult to accept. It is relevant to note that a proprietorship concern does not have a separate legal identity other than its sole proprietor and an assessee carrying on business is required to maintain books of accounts necessary for his/her assessment. Be that as it may, the ITAT noted that there was no evidence of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta owning and possessing any cash-in-hand and the self serving documents could not be relied upon. 13. Fourthly, the return of income also indicated that Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had earned interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
