9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee failed to prove credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction for receipt of advance of ₹ 23 lacs from above persons and even in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harbilas, assessee failed to prove their identity. In case of deposit of ₹ 50,000/- in the bank account of the assessee, assessee failed to produce any evidence of past savings and even this issue was not at all addressed before ld. CIT (Appeals) and no evidence have been furnished in this regard. Same is the position before us as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence of deposit of ₹ 50,000/- out of any known sources - Decided against assessee - Case No. : I. T. A. No. 342 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - MR. S. J. VAZIF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the agreement to sell the Plot, he had received ₹ 9.50 lacs on 29.01.2009 and ₹ 13.50 lacs on 02.02.2009 from S/Shri Sanjay Kumar, Harbilas and Subhash Kumar. Such cash was deposited by him on the same date in his account but since the deal could not mature, the agreement to sell was cancelled and the amount of ₹ 12 lacs was repaid by the assessee on 02.03.2009. The balance amount was repaid in the Assessment Year 2011-12. So far as the Shop is concerned, it was the case of the assessee that as per the agreement to sell, the assessee had received ₹ 5 lacs from Shri Bhoop Narayan, which was deposited by him in his bank account. On being asked, the assessee could not produce S/Shri Sanjay Kumar and Harbilas, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank account of the assessee was found, for which no explanation was furnished by him. The assessee had also received interest of ₹ 22,317/- in his bank accounts, which was not disclosed by him in his income tax returns. The Assessing Officer ordered the addition of these amounts also to the income of the assessee. The challenge made to the aforesaid additions by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short the Commissioner) was rejected. The Commissioner confirmed all the aforesaid additions by returning a finding of fact that it was improbable that the advances were received by the assessee from the alleged persons, as sought to be explained by him. No reliance was placed on the agreement to sell pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 lacs from three persons namely S/Shri Sanjay Kumar, Harbilas and Subhash Kumar. It was further noticed that despite the agreement with Shri Subhash Kumar having been cancelled, the entire advance money was not refunded to him immediately and it was not explained by the assessee as to what happened with regard to the amount refunded on cancellation of the agreement to S/Shri Sanjay Kumar and Harbilas as according to the assessee, amounts had been received by him from them as well. It was still further noted that it was highly unbelievable that the persons, who had given advances to the assessee namely S/Shri Sanjay Kumar, Harbilas and Subhash Kumar had disappeared without seeking refund on the cancellation of the agreement to sell. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Suresh Kumar but they were also having only meager salary income. xx xx xx xx 7. As regards the receipt of advance of ₹ 23 lacs from Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri Harbilas and Shri Subhash Kumar on 29.01.2009 and 02.02.2009, again the position is same because it was a cash transaction. No banking transactions have been done and even the agreement in question was not executed on the judicial stamp papers to prove the genuineness of the agreement in question. The assessee failed to produce Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harbilas before Assessing Officer for examination. The Assessing Officer issued summons against them but it was reported that no person by the name of Sanjay Kumar is residing at the giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the agreement in question. Thus, assessee failed to prove credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction for receipt of advance of ₹ 23 lacs from above persons and even in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harbilas, assessee failed to prove their identity. xx xx xx xx 8. In case of deposit of ₹ 50,000/- in the bank account of the assessee, assessee failed to produce any evidence of past savings and even this issue was not at all addressed before ld. CIT (Appeals) and no evidence have been furnished in this regard. Same is the position before us as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence of deposit of ₹ 50,000/- out of any known sources. It can thus be seen that the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
