9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, the claim of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Similarly, with regard to sale of equipment, the assessee failed to furnish complete evidence and the said claim was also not accepted. The assessee had fabricated various documents produced before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claims to have accumulated cash from sale of agricultural produce as back as 11.05.2009 (Rs.1,97,829/-), 20.04.2009 (Rs.1,25,000/-), 21.04.2009 (Rs.75,000/-) and 01.11.2009 (Rs.1,32,300/-). Similarly, the assessee claims to have received loan of ₹ 2 lakhs on 06.02.2009 and ₹ 2,43,000/- on 23.11.2009 and keeping in view of his social status and financial position of the assessee, the CIT(A) was of the view that it was highly improbable that the assessee would keep the said cash. Further, in the statement recorded before the Police Department on 24.11.2009, the assessee had not explained the source of cash out of agricultural income and loans / advances. The CIT(A) has held that the cash was out of sale of liquor and has confirmed the addition in the hands of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and on both the occasions, notice was issued to the party. Further, even on 28.09.2015, none appeared on behalf of assessee and notice was issued to the party. On next dates of hearing i.e. 28.12.2015, 30.12.2015 and thereafter, on 29.03.2016, there was representation by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. However, on the appointed date of hearing i.e. on 04.05.2016, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment. It may be pointed out that the case was being handled by Shri M.K. Kulkarni, who had appeared on earlier dates and he also appeared before us in other appeals and sought adjournment on 04.05.2016. However, with regard to present appeal, no mention was made by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee and even on second call, none appeared on behalf of assessee before the Tribunal, hence, we proceed to decide the present appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue and after perusing the records. 4. The issue arising in the present appeal filed by the assessee vide ground of appeal No.1 is against the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of cash seized of ₹ 9,20,080/- where both the persons had not filed returns of income. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return of income declaring Nil income and agricultural income of ₹ 2,73,275/-. Thereafter, the case was picked up for scrutiny and the ITP furnished the details of agricultural income and pointed out that the assessee had sold his agricultural crops and also received sum of ₹ 4,43,000/- from Shri Sattrsiha P. Rajput for purchase of truck / mini bus and source of cash seized was from the same. The Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 of the Act to the concerned person. In his statement, Shri Rajput stated that he had given ₹ 2 lakhs on 06.02.2009 and ₹ 2,43,000/- on 23.11.2009 from bank withdrawals and he also stated that there was no concrete evidence regarding sum given to the assessee. On verification of pass book furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that there were only withdrawals but there was no corresponding entries which prove that any sum was given to the assessee by Shri Rajput. Considering the above, explanation of assessee to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 9,20,080/- and stock of wine of ₹ 12,220/- as income from other sources in the hands of assessee. 6. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer in the absence of any evidence produced by the assessee of the source out of agricultural income and the loans / advances. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is against validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act. The assessee for the year under consideration had not furnished any return of income and after the police raid on the premises of assessee, cash of ₹ 9,20,080/- and stock of wine of ₹ 12,220/- was found. Where the assessee had not furnished the return of income and where on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer in respect of seizure of cash and stock of wine in the hands of assessee, reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act and notice was issued under section 148 of the Act. 9. Under the provisions of the Act itself, it is provided that where the assessee has failed to furnish return of income for any of the assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
