9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y low and it was also not supported by any evidence. His son started filing return of income when he just passed Senior Secondary Examination. The story propounded by assessee is also not acceptable because for the last 07 years if the son of assessee was having cash amount with him, why he was not deposited same in the bank account and why the cash of 8 lakhs have been given to the assessee in assessment year under appeal for depositing in cash in the joint account maintained by assessee and his son. It is also not believable that a person who was earning would not make any drawings and withdrawal for personal purpose. The Ld. CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in enhancing the income by 8 lakhs particularly when the second bank account maintained by assessee with Andhra Bank was not disclosed to the A.O. at the assessment stage. If assessee was having any lawful source to make deposit in Andhra Bank, there were no reason for him to conceal this bank account from the A.O. at the assessment stage. Therefore, assessee has created an afterthought story to explain the cash deposited in the Andhra Bank account. No evidence has been filed on record to explain the source of the cash deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of withdrawal and deposit in the bank account in the assessment year in appeal and came to the finding that source of cash deposited during the months of August, September and October, 2007 amounting to ₹ 3,59,900 (Rs.2,00,500 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 1,19,400) is unexplained and same were treated as income of assessee under section 69A of the I.T. Act and accordingly, made the addition of ₹ 3,59,900 and income of the assessee was computed at ₹ 4,69,510. 3. The assessee challenged the addition before CIT(A). However, assessee did not prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) not only confirmed the action of the A.O. in making the addition of ₹ 3,59,900, but also enhanced the addition by another amount of ₹ 8 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) at the appellate proceedings noticed that assessee was having another bank account xxx580 with Andhra Bank wherein cash deposits were made of ₹ 5.50 lakhs and ₹ 2.50 lakhs on 11th April, 2007 and this bank account was not produced before the A.O. In considering non- compliance on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) also enhanced the income of assessee by ₹ 8 lakhs. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter for fresh adjudication to the file of CIT(A). During the restored back proceedings, Ld. AR has provided copy of bank a/cs maintained with Andhra Bank, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. along with detail of total deposits and withdrawals made in the above two bank a/cs during the period April, 2007 to March, 2008, according to which there were total deposits of ₹ 47,44,0004 in the above two bank a/cs. It has been submitted by the Ld. AR that out of the above total deposits, amount of ₹ 9 lac received by way of cheque from M/s Paul & Co. was a temporary loan, which was returned partly through cheque and it has no business connections and other deposits are being claimed as business receipts. To substantiate the claim to have received ₹ 9 lac from M/s Paul & Co., copy of ledger a/c in the books of above company has also been filed. 4.1.1. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that apart from the loan of ₹ 9 lac, assessee has received ₹ 8 lac from his son out of his savings from salary of 7 years on account of payment for ticket, visa, etc., for his trip to USA. Further, it has been submitted that amount of ₹ 40,000/- was received by cheque to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertion that he is an simple layman. In otherwords, ignorance of law is not an excuse. 4.1.4. Further, I am in agreement with the comments of the AO while passing the assessment order that if there was any bonafide mistake in the return filed, the same should have been rectified by the assessee within the statutory time available with him as per provisions of section 139(5) of the Act before the expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, which is earlier, but in this case, appellant failed to exercise this option and when AO and Id. CIT(A) detected infirmities in the return filed, appellant chose to revise the figure of business receipts first from ₹ 9,25,570/- to ₹ 25,01,620/- which has now been revised to ₹ 30,04,000/- without any supporting evidence. The revised claim of business receipts is not acceptable technically as per provisions of the Act and even on merits of the case as the same is found to be devoid of any corroborative evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s. 69A of ₹ 3,59,900/- is upheld. 4.1.5. Further, with regard to the enhancement made by the Id. CIT(A) in the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed." 6. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee on ground Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that assessee is a semi-literate and layman and has suffered because earlier lawyer did not put-up things correctly and properly. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, objected to the contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee and submitted that assessee has not raised any ground of appeal challenging the addition of ₹ 3,59,900 as well as addition of ₹ 8 lakhs made by the Ld. CIT(A) Learned Counsel for the Assessee in view of the above stated that assessee has not raised any ground of appeal challenging both the above additions. 8. In view of the above contentions of both the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. It is an admitted fact that assessee maintained bank account with Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Kalkaji, Delhi in which unexplained cash deposits were found and for three months assessee could not offer any explanation before the authorities below. The assessee very cleverly tried to revise the gross receipts to ₹ 25,01,020 against gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
