9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht, is again incorrect and deserves to be quashed. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,20,000/- as per para-5 of his order on account of following facts: a. The CIT(A) has failed to consider that the credit of ₹ 7,20,000/- related to agricultural income belonging to Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, in which the appellant is co-parceners and since, he had sold the agricultural seeds to M/s Garg Seeds Corporation on behalf of Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, he has acted only on behalf of HUF and, therefore, any amount received in his name from M/s Garg Seeds Corporation is the income of the HUF only and not his income. b. That the CIT(A) has ignored the duly attested affidavit filed during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, the deposits in the bank account stood duly explained and the CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that since the assessee did not have agricultural income, the credit of ₹ 7,20,000/- is the income from his Resort business, which is contrary to the evidences placed on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, further, observed by the AO that the assessee had claimed receipt of ₹ 14.70 lacs from his father, and the relevant entry does not appear in the balance-sheet of the assessee. Further, the entries shown in the bank account of Shri Jagdev Singh appears on 26.03.2007. As per the sale deed, the seller had received the full amount of consideration before the date of transfer/date of registration i.e. 26.3.2007. The assessee claimed to have received a sum of ₹ 4,77,000/- from M/s Garg Seeds Corporation, a proprietary concern of Shri Rajender Kumar, on behalf of his father Shri Jagdev Singh, out of agricultural income of his father. However, the assessee failed to produce the concerned person. Entries of this amount was also not appearing in the balance-sheet of M/s Royal Resorts. In view of this, the AO made the addition of ₹ 14,77,000/- treating the investment in the purchase of land, as unexplained investment. Ld. CIT(A), on appreciation of the submission filed before him, upheld the addition, as is evident from para 4 of his order : "4 I have gone through the assessment order passed by the assessing officer an reply submitted by the counsel of the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural seeds to M/s Garg Seeds Corporation, on behalf of the Shri Jagdev Singh Grewal, HUF, he acted only on behalf of the HUF and therefore, any amount received in his name from M/s Garg Sales Corporation, is the income of the HUF and not his income. 8. We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case, including Paper Book and brief synopsis in the matter. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had not shown any agricultural income in his return of income. However, a credit balance of ₹ 33,97,623/- of agricultural income of Shri Sharanjit Singh, in the balance-sheet of M/s Royal Resorts, as on 31.3.2007 is appearing. Assessee was asked by AO, to explain, despite having agricultural land, why he has not shown his agricultural income in the return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee filed written submission, as under : "The assessee already fluted vide letter Dt.26/10/2009 that Sh. Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF who is the Karta of the family sold the agriculture productions to M/s Garg Seeds through Sh. Shuranjit Singh (assessee) against Bill No. 1 Dt. 26/12/2006 and the payments of the same was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But the assessee had a credit balance of ₹ 33,97,623/- of agriculture income in the balance sheet of his proprietary firm M/s Royal Resorts. The assessee claimed that the said income represented agriculture income of his father's HUF, Sh. Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, who has sold the agriculture produce through the assessee and payments have been received in assessee's bank accounts. It has not been clarified by the assessee as to why agriculture income of HUF was not received in the saving account of the HUF. The saving account in which the said receipts have been received belonged to assessee and even account was operated by the assessee. Since the assessee didn't have any source of agriculture income, hence these credit entries of ₹ 7,20,0000.00 would have to be considered as assessee's income from his resort business. Hence this ground of appeal of assessee is also rejected and addition of ₹ 7,20,000 is confirmed." 10. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case and uncorroborated explanation filed by the assessee, which cannot be accepted as plausible explanation, in view of the findings of the AO and CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A), upheld the finding of the AO in para 7 of his order and the same is reproduced hereunder : "7. Now coming to ground of appeal No. 7 & 8 for addition of ₹ 8,98,528/- towards unsecured loans received from non-resident friends/relatives. The assessee has contended that said amount has been received as unsecured loans from NRI's for purchasing property. Whereas, the assessee has given undertaking under Indian Laws that said remittance received by him is not for purchasing property. The undertaking given by the assessee, on basis of which the said remittance has been received, cannot be ignored. The undertaking has been given as per the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act and assessee cannot be allowed to use the provisions of different acts as per his convenience and flout the law of the land. Even otherwise loans have to be received by account payee cheques as per the provisions, of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has given the-1 undertaking that he has received the money for maintenance of the family and it has to be treated as income of the assessee and nothing else. Hence these grounds of appeal are also-rejected a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
