9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 12.50 lakhs paid on October 22, 2008 to the seller of the property has been made out of unexplained sources. The entries in cash flow statement are unreasonably doubted. 3. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 19,00,000 as unexplained investment. The entries in cash flow statement are unreasonably doubted. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in doubting the source of Rs. 13.45 lakhs given to the asses see by her son for the purpose of construction from out of the loan obtained by him. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,13,710 appearing in the Central Bank of India, Kalyana Nagar Branch account of the assessee. 5. Having held that the earning of the assessee were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the gap in withdrawals from the bank and the payment on subsequent date, the assessee reverts to the cash flow statement and has not explained the gap with any plausible explanation. 6.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee is claiming that the Assessing Officer had not called for the consolidated cash flow statement. He further observed that though he did not have any occasion to call for any cash flow statement from the assessee, it is only on her own, filed the cash flow statement explaining the sources for cash payments for purchase of land at Kondapur. No reasons were brought by the assessee for not furnishing such statement before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and what prompted them to file the same during appeal proceedings, except mentioning to the lack of proper awareness in the matter on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidences for the sources of cash payment of Rs. 12.50 lakhs on October 22, 2008, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this count. 7. Before us, the learned authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the cash was paid later on October 22, 2008 (page 2 of the paper book) and not immediately. In fact, till today the land remains unregistered by way of regular sale deed. He submitted that the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) both did not even advert to the explanation, in the remand report or in the appellate order, respectively. 7.3 It is submitted that the addition of Rs. 12,50,000 is totally unjustified. The explanation is rejected purely on the basis of suspicion, surmise or conjecture. There is no material to suggest that the amount of Rs. 12,50,000 was not available to pay to the vendor. In this context, the authorised representative relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) that "Mere suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence". Similar observations have been made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). The hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held in the case of Asst. CIT v. Baldev Raj Charla [2009] 121 TTJ (Delhi) 366 as follows : "There is no finding recorded by the learned Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it was brought out by the assessee that the same was met out of receipts from her brother Sri V. K. Naidu (Rs. 10 lakhs), her son Sri V. S. Pradeep (Rs. 13.40 lakhs) and the balance from her spouse Sri V. V. Rao. Referring to the change of stances in the version of the assessee and bringing out the mismatch of dates and loans obtained, the Assessing Officer treated the entire investment of Rs. 19 lakhs in construction of house property as unexplained. 11. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in support of her claim, the assessee referred to the cash flow statement and claims that the total sources were out of loans from her son and receipts from her brother. When remanded the same to the Assessing Officer, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer brought out that the assessee is changing her version whenever a lapse was pointed in the earlier version and that the cash flow statement filed after conclusion of the assessment proceedings is an afterthought to fill in the gaps pointed out in the assessment and that such cash flow statement without any supporting evidences cannot be considered. 11.1 Against the above comments of the Assessing Officer, the assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, agricultural incomes which are shown in cash flow statement. According to cash flow statement, Rs. 13,40,000 and other income sources have been included. Source of Rs. 19,00,000 as well as house hold expenses, etc., have also been explained. No flaw was found in the cash flow statement. He submitted that it is rejected only on the ground that it was not filed at the time of original proceedings. But in particular source of Rs. 13,40,000 have been shown in the course of assessment proceedings itself as well as agricultural income receipts and other cash withdrawals from Central Bank of India (page 8 of the paper book). He contended that the assessee's explanation has been rejected only on the ground that the same was not given at the time of filing the original letter dated October 10, 2011. 12.2. The learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee has shown availability of the bulk funds of Rs. 50,00,000 (all loans from Adarsh Bank by the member of the family) and Rs. 13,40,000 (loan from Reliance Capital raised by the son) to explain Rs. 69,00,000 of investment. As the assessee has other incomes also and as the Assessing Officer has doubted the explanations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the submissions of the assessee were general in nature and no specific evidences were furnished explaining the sources of credits appearing in her bank account. He therefore confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned authorised representative submitted that these amounts are three cash deposits in the assessee's account of Central Bank of India (page 12 of the paper book). The assessee gave the explanation for the source of cash deposits at page 8 of the paper book. The sources are receipts from V. L. Prasanna's (employed unmarried daughter) ICICI Bank account, cash withdrawals from husband (husband was an Assistant Registrar of Co-op. Societies at the time) account apart from rental income for two preceding months. The assessee had also agricultural income receipts of Rs. 2,90,800 during the year. The Assessing Officer has not considered the explanation at all. The learned authorised representative submitted that during appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted cash flow statement to show the availability of funds. The Assessing Officer remarked in his remand report that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
