9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of ₹ 22,00,000/- from Shri Kulbir Singh. No documentary evidence is also filed before the Tribunal to substantiate the explanation filed before the authorities below. The contention and case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee would not support the case of the assessee because the genuineness of the agreement to sell itself is in doubt and assessee also failed to explain the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 21,54,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. No interference is therefore called for in the matter. It may also be noted here that regarding rest of the amount deposited as cash in the bank account of the assessee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not argue the appeal and did not produce any evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agriculture produce. Regarding the source of cash deposits of ₹ 21,54,000/-, it was submitted that this cash deposits is out of receipt of advance of ₹ 22 Lakhs against the sale of land to Sh. Kulbir Singh S/o Sh. Hazara Singh. Reproduction of the part of the assessment order discussing the addition of ₹ 21,54,000/-, the assessee reiterated that the impugned addition is on account of non production of Sh. Kulbir Singh, the purchaser of the land who had gone abroad and settled overseas. The assessee submitted that the statement of Sh. Jasbir Singh power of attorney holder of Sh. Kulbir Singh was recorded therefore onus upon assessee stood discharged by producing the person holding power of attorney before the AO. Nothing wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he market. Availability of true, material and relevant evidences might not have required the appellant or the person carrying general power of attorney on his behalf in personal capacity. Even if the appellant is settled overseas and somebody carrying authentic general power of attorney is available on his behalf, he has to produce the relevant evidences in support to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. The appellant has not produced anything before the Assessing Officer or during the present proceedings and, therefore, failed to explain the source of cash. In view of the above discussion, the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits for ₹ 29,12,240/- is confirmed. Ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed. 6. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below, it is clear that the issue before the authorities below was regarding cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the financial year under consideration. There are various cash deposits on various dates totaling to twelve in numbers as noted at page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee allegedly explained each and every deposit by explaining that source of the cash deposits were from sale of Popular trees vegetables, withdrawal from the bank and advance receipt against the sale of the property, sale of car etc. The AO however noted that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of any of the explanation. As regards the deposit of ₹ 21,54,000/- in cash in bank account of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miserably failed to explain the source of advance money receipt of ₹ 22,00,000/- from Shri Kulbir Singh. No documentary evidence is also filed before the Tribunal to substantiate the explanation filed before the authorities below. 10. The contention and case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee would not support the case of the assessee because the genuineness of the agreement to sell itself is in doubt and assessee also failed to explain the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 21,54,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. No interference is therefore called for in the matter. It may also be noted here that regarding rest of the amount deposited as cash in the bank account of the assessee, Ld. Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
