9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purports to reflect its state of its affairs as at the year-end per its accounts, discloses a separate and different set of figures, including their profiling. In this regard, it is notable that all the loans/advances are received in cash, without as much as a cash receipt being issued, so the assessee could, at any time, change a creditor, or the amount ascribed to him, to suit himself. The Revenue is equally to blame for not questioning the assessee in this respect, which clearly undermines, nay, castigates, the assessee’s case, who only could explain the said differences. Assessee’s appeal is dismissed. - ITA No.979/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri M.Gopi Krishna, Jt. CIT ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore ( CIT(A) for short) dated 14.03.2014, partly allowing the assessee s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) dated 30.12.2009 for assessment year (AY) 2007-08. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the appeal ex parte , albeit on merits. There being no improvement in the assessee s case, the impugned addition was confirmed vide order dated 07/03/2011/copy on record). In further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee contended that on account of some mistake between the assessee and his counsel, Shri K. Srinivasan, FCA, he was kept in the dark, and was not even aware of the (first) appellate proceedings, about which he came to know only on the receipt of the show cause notice dated 8/3/2012 by the Assessing Officer (AO). And that, therefore, another opportunity be afforded to him in the interest of justice. The same was accordingly allowed by the tribunal, setting aside the impugned order for fresh adjudication, further directing the assessee to cooperate by not taking any adjournment, vide its order dated 20/12/2013 (copy on record). In the second round before the ld. first appellate authority, he decided the same admitting additional evidences sought to be relied upon by the assessee, who was represented by another counsel, Shri C. Ramachandran, FCA, partly allowing the assessee s appeal by confirming the impugned addition, i.e., to the extent of ₹ 13.50 lacs, so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H, 805A-C]. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Whether a receipt is to be treated as income or not, must depend very largely on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. Where the explanations of the assessee as regards amounts shown in the account books of a firm of which he was a partner, as credits from him, were rejected as untrue: Held, that it was open to the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Tribunal to hold that they represented the concealed income of the assessee. CIT v. P. Mohanakala [ 2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) A bare reading of section. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; (ii)such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessees offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or (b) the explanation offered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. Further, the decision as to whether the credit has been, under the facts and circumstances, satisfactorily explained or not, is essentially one of fact, even as clarified in Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (supra). 4.2 Coming to the facts of the case, the observations and findings by the ld. CIT(A) qua each of the impugned credits, which are under challenge, are as under: A. Shri Arokiyasamy (Rs. 2,50,000/-) The addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- received as loan from appellant's father Shri Arokiyasamy. During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted that his father is having explainable source of income and-also filed the confirmation letter. As seen from the confirmation letter, Shri Arokiyasamy stated that he paid ₹ 2,50,000/- from 2006-07 on various dates by cash to help his son in the construction business. The appellant has not filed any evidence regarding the source of the Father. As seen from the confirmation letter, his father is a retired teacher and paid the amounts from the gratuity and pension savings in the past years. The appellant was asked to furnish the details of bank account of the father and prove the sources. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. The appellant could not furnish any further evidence for the amount of ₹ 7 Lakhs. The Authorized Representative was asked to furnish all evidence's regarding the nature of work done along with invoice raised by the appellant. The appellant could not furnish any documentary evidence apart from the agreement as discussed above. Even the agreement filed, there appears to be no payment details in the copy filed with the Assessing Officer and during the course of appellate proceedings the copy of the agreement shows same payment details. Due to lack of any supplementary evidence and also the difference in the agreement filed before the Assessing Officer and before me, the payment details as shown in the agreement cannot be considered as conclusive proof. In view of that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is CONFIRMED. D. Miss Judith, Shri Robin Paul Joseph Shri Robin Paul Joseph (Rs. 1 lakh each) It is regarding the addition of ₹ 2 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of advance received from Miss Judith and Shri Rabin Paul Joseph. During the course appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative filed confirmation letter from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnish the bank pass-book even in the case of his father, who was found to be in receipt of a monthly pension of ₹ 7800/- only. Why, he has already extended a loan, in no insubstantial sum, to the assessee in the preceding year. The assessee s whole case is unsubstantiated and without any merit (refer para ). Under the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to dwell on each of the impugned credits separately, issuing separate findings qua each, as is normally to be the case and, relying on the decision in CIT v. K.Y. Pilliah [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC), endorse that by the ld. CIT(A). Why, a perusal of the record itself reveals several further inconsistencies, to some of which, so as to highlight the assessee s conduct and explanations, reference is made hereinafter. The reliance on the decision in Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. is, again, misplaced. None of the confirmations in the present case bear the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) of the creditors. In the facts of that case, the name of the assessee did not appear in the list of the beneficiaries (of accommodation entries) in which the creditors where purportedly engaged in, confirmations from whom clearly refle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained the said difference in-asmuch as it is only the sum actually credited in its accounts that need to be explained. No doubt, the ledger accounts of the relevant creditors are on record, and which are in agreement with the breakup of the loans as provided subsequently, but then it is only the assessee who can explain as to how its balance sheet, which purports to reflect its state of its affairs as at the year-end per its accounts, discloses a separate and different set of figures, including their profiling. In this regard, it is notable that all the loans/advances are received in cash, without as much as a cash receipt being issued, so the assessee could, at any time, change a creditor, or the amount ascribed to him, to suit himself. The Revenue is equally to blame for not questioning the assessee in this respect, which clearly undermines, nay, castigates, the assessee s case, who only could explain the said differences. Another anomaly observed is that the assessee s stand before the Tribunal is of being unaware of the appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority (in the first round), and of having become aware of the same only on the receipt of the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
