9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capability of the source to generate funds is an exercise, which needs to be carried. In the instant case, an exercise in that behalf was, in fact, carried out, which led to the conclusion that each source identified by the Assessee did not have the necessary wherewithal to provide funds to the Assessee. We are persuaded to hold that in this case, additions have not been made based on mere suspicion, surmises and/or conjectures, as alleged by the Assessee. - Decided against assessee. - T. C. A. No. 189 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mrs.R.Hemalatha JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1. Before we deal with the appeal, we may indicate that the practice followed, vis-a-vis, tax appeals is that, advance copies are not served on the contesting party. It is only, after notice is issued, in the matter that the respondents are served. 2.The instant appeal has been filed by the Assessee. Though additional sets of paper book were filed with the Registry, no advance copy is served on any of the counsels who are empanelled to appear f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter, before the Bench, for grant of waiver of the aforementioned directions. 4.1. We make it clear, that these directions are applicable, only to tax matters. 5.In so far as the present case is concerned, it is noticed, that the appeal, which pertains to the assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), dated 30.11.2016. 6.The only issue, which arose for consideration, before the Tribunal was, as to whether additions made to the income of the Assessee, under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), ought to be sustained. 6.1.To be noted, the Assessee has lost throughout. 7.The learned counsel for the Assessee, however, says that the evidence produced, before the Authorities below, has not been properly appreciated. 7.1.It is, his contention that the initial onus, regarding source of unexplained funds, was discharged by the Assessee. 7.2.It is, in this connection, that the learned counsel for the Assessee says that the Authorities below, failed to appreciate, which is, that not only, the identity of the persons, who furnished funds to the Assessee was disclosed, but al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,00,000 2 Mrs.V.Rukmani Mother-in-law 5,00,000 3 Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy Younger Brother 2,49,630 4 Mr.S.Muthukrishnan Elder Brother 2,00,000 5 Mr.S.Srinivasan Elder Brother 2,00,000 6 Ms.Varshini Raman Daughter 2,30,000 7 Ms.Divya Raman Daughter 2,40,000 8 Own Funds 2,28,370 9 Mabel Engineers P. Ltd. Employer 1,15,000 Total 24,63,000 9.6. As would be evident upon perusing the details set out in the table that each one of them from Serial No.1 to 7 are close relatives of the Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Table, set out above, was engaged as a Purohit/Priest. He had sought to explain that the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-, which, he gave, to the Assessee was generated from private savings. 10.8.There was no proof, placed before the Assessing Officer, as to the income which Mr.Srinivasan had earned during the relevant period. 10.9.In so far as the other two brothers were concerned, i.e., Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy and Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, they had indicated that the monies given to the Assessee, were, in fact loans, which were being repaid. 11.The Assessing Officer, while considering the explanation of Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, noticed that he earned a salary of approximately, ₹ 17,000/- per month. Since, it was sought to be explained by Mr.S.Muthukrishnan that in order to repay the loan, he had also dipped into the savings of his son, the earnings of his son, were also looked at. After examining the accounts of the son of Mr.Muthukrishnan, it was found that he earned a salary of approximately, ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- per month and on most occasions, he had withdrawn only ₹ 200/- to ₹ 2,000/- from his bank account. The withdrawal, in certain instances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4.19 lakhs, which would not allow him to save 2.28 lakhs, as he needs to meet his domestic expenses. The assessee did not co-ordinate with the dates or amounts of withdrawals with cash deposits. In view of this, the assessee's argument is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He fails to satisfactorily explain the source of funds in respect of the cash deposits into his bank account to an extent of ₹ 2,28,370. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is assessed as income of the assessee. 12.These explanations, were, once again, scrutinized both by the CIT(A) and by the Tribunal. We have also looked at the explanations given by the Assessee. 13.Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the Assessee, in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Limited, (2013) 354 ITR 296 (Delhi). 13.1.According to us, the judgment is completely distinguishable on facts. 13.2.In that case, CIT has reversed the view of the Assessing Officer, after, inter alia, noting the fact, that 86 investors wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
