9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opening of HUF account appellant obtained cash credit facility in the name of M/s. H.K. Mistry and copy of certificate from bank dtd. 30/06/2014 sanctioning cash credit loan Account No. 118 belonging M/s. H.K. Mistry has stated by the Bank. So far as Ground related to total cash of ₹ 1,85,800/- is concerned. It was submitted by the learned AR. Assessee had explained the source of nature of credit entries/deposits made in the bank account. It was submitted that the amounts were received by way of cheques and cash from Darshan Traders, Prop. Alka Mistry. Further stated that the cheques and cash amounts received from Darshan Traders in the Assessment Year 2010-11 have been partly accepted as genuine amounts. Therefore there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the appellant's Authorized Representative vide letter dtd. 08.12.2015, had sought an adjournment of hearing requesting to consolidate above appeals with appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11. iii) That the adjournment of hearing was announced in the Court on 07.01.2016. This adjournment was not communicated / received by the appellant as he was absent. The appellant was under impression that the appeals will be consolidated and will be heard together. iv) That the appellant has received appellate order dtd. 05.02.2016 dismissing both the appeals in limine. v) That the appellant states that there was no malafide intention not to appear before the Hon ble Tribunal or to disregard notices issued by the office of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held as belonging to Mr. H.K. Mistry (HUF) instead of treating the same as belonging to H.K. Mistry (Individual). iii). On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals)-II is not justified both in law and on facts in upholding cash deposit of ₹ 1,85,800/-(for A.Y. 2006-07) ₹ 59,600/- (for A.Y.2007-08) in the cash credit A/c no. 118 with Commercial Co-operative bank Ltd. as unaccounted investment U/s 69 of the IT act of the appellant. It is prayed that the amount of ₹ 1,85,800/- (for A.Y. 2006-07) ₹ 59,600/-(for A.Y. 2007-08) be not treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the IT act., which is received from Darshan Traders and the amount of ₹ 1,85,800/-(for A.Y. 2006-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore proceeding further, it was necessary to mention here that as on date the assessee s HUF does not have any PAN and it has no source of income either therefore and as stated earlier the enquiries have proved that Account No.118 with the Commercial Cooperative Bank Limited in assessee s undisclosed Bank therefore the contention of assessee was not tenable in the eyes of the AO and learned AO held that amount of ₹ 1,85,800/- remains unexplained. Under the circumstances, an addition of ₹ 1,85,800/- is made to the assessee s income u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, it was discovered by the Income-tax Department that assessee had another Saving Bank Account No. 2440 with Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year. The correct figure of deposit is ₹ 1,61,054/-. 13. Assessee also stated that before the authorities below the appellant has given detailed submission on the above ground with regard to Account No.118 with Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. as unaccounted bank account is not belonging to the appellant. 14. Appellant Representative further submitted that the Karta of HUF Mr. H.K. Mistry had taken loan from Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Alkapuri Branch, Vadodara in the year 2000. The above cash credit facility was obtained by the HUF to help one of the number of HUF Smt. Alkaben H. Mistry, Prop. of Darshan Traders. Smt. Alkaben Mistry had no bank account in her name. Therefore, the payments were made from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
