9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs received from Shri P. Surya Prakasa Rao and therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition and the same is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). So far as amount received from Shri L. Dileshwara Rao,Shri L. Dileshwara Rao has explained before the Assessing Officer that he has given ₹ 30 lakhs in three installments i.e. ₹ 10 lakh each. When Assessing Officer asked the assessee in respect of amount received from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and also bank entries, the assessee has failed to explain the same before the Assessing Officer, even before the ld.CIT(A) and even before us also no explanation is given. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him that he has received ₹ 30 lakhs from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and therefore the ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Credit in the assessee’s bank account with Shalantri Branch - assessee has stated that this credit represent advance received from one P. Appa Rao for sale of Relliveedhi site - Held that:- Before the ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that Shri P. Appa Rao is a Manson and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2,96,500/-. 3. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee in respect of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act of ₹ 39,74,113/-, the Assessing Officer has noted as under:- 4.2 As per the details filed with original return, the assesseeappellant had shown fixed deposits of ₹ 11,59,660/-, capital of ₹ 21,75,269/- as on 31.03.2010, and the total income admitted was ₹ 5,82,454/-. In the second return the assessee has shown fixed deposits of ₹ 56,52,773/-, capital of ₹ 65,83,634/- and the total income admitted under the head 'other sources' was ₹ 10,91,015/-. It was represented that the books of account were revised taking into account the additional fixed deposits, and that the revised capital account showed introduction of capital both in cash and cheques on various dates as under:- 28.07.2009 Cash : ₹ 1,00,000/- 30.07.2009 Cash : ₹ 1,00,000/- 10.03.2010 Cash : ₹ 7,00,000/- 15.03.2010 Cash : ₹ 10,10,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of confirmation letters from Shri Appa Rao and L. Dileshwara Rao. 5. So far as Shri Appa Rao is concerned, the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation why this confirmation was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) rejected to admit the additional evidence in respect of Shri Appa Rao. So far as Shri L. Dileshwara Rao is concerned, it was submitted before ld. CIT(A) that Shri L. Dileshwara Rao s son was met with an accident, therefore, assessee was not collected and filed confirmation letter before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence in respect of Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that Shri L. Dileshwara Rao is relative to the assessee and has stated that he has given ₹ 30 lakhs in cash as advance for purchase of certain property of an extent of 0.13 cents belonging to the assessee. It was stated that the cash was handed-over in three instalments of ₹ 10 lakh each, but he could not give the dates of the payments of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in assessing such investments not recorded in the original books of account as unexplained investment u/s.69. 4.13 The AR also raised the plea that in regard to addition made of unexplained investment u/s.69, the assessee is not required to prove the creditworthiness of the person and the genuineness of the transaction, and that it would be sufficient to furnish the details of the parties who had advanced the amounts to make the impugned investment. 4.14 I have considered the plea and do not find any merit in such contention. It is to be noted that the assessee had raised the claim that it had received advance to the tune of ₹ 37 lakhs on sale of some of its properties and which amount was utilized to make the impugned investments in FDs. Therefore, it is the burden of the assessee to prove such claim satisfactorily. It is the fundamental principle of law of evidence that a person who makes the claim has to prove such claim. Further, the burden placed u/s.69, is that the assessee is required to prove the nature and source for the investment satisfactorily. Such burden is similar to the one u/s.68, which also requires the assessee to prove the nature and source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng advance was received towards purchase of property. Only during the appellate proceedings, confirmation letter of Dilleswara Rao was filed as additional evidence. The assessee's case was that it had received advance of ₹ 30 lakhs from Dilleswara Rao towards sale of its property and such amount was credited in its capital account. The entries in the capital account show receipt of cash of ₹ 10,10,000/- and cheque transfer of ₹ 19,90,000/- which were said to represent the amounts received from Dilleswara Rao. It is seen from the assessee's account with Shalantri Branch, there were cheque deposits of ₹ 9,95,000/- on 18,03.2010 and ₹ 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010, aggregating to ₹ 19,90,000/-. On the other hand, the said Dilleshwara Rao in his sworn deposition had stated that he had given cash of ₹ 10 lakhs each in three installments to the assessee. Thus the assessee has not satisfactorily explained the source for the above cheque deposits of ₹ 19,90,000/- in its Shalantri Branch account. During the appeal hearing, the assessee was asked to explain from whom these cheques were obtained and how the cheque deposits are explained when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 2nd return and partly of ₹ 2,74,113/- towards unexplained investment. During the appeal proceedings also the assessee had not given any details relating to this transaction. Hence the AO is directed to consider the amount of ₹ 7,83,113/- as unexplained investment instead of considering part amount towards additional income offered in return and part amount towards unexplained investment. This ground of appeal is accordingly. 7. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed confirmation letters and, therefore, it is not an obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the same and also submitted that all the transactions are genuine transactions, therefore, the assessee has discharged burden casted upon him, but ld. CIT(A) is not justified in conforming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that the assessee has only filed confirmation letters at the appellate stage and the assessee has failed to substantiate the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and submitted that the assessee failed to discharge onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y considering the discrepancies in the bank deposits, it was found that the entries in the capital account show receipt of cash of ₹ 10,10,000/- and cheque transfer of ₹ 19,90,000/- which were said to represent the amounts received from Shri Dilleswara Rao. It is seen from the assessee's account with Shalantri Branch, there were cheque deposits of ₹ 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010 and ₹ 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010, aggregating to ₹ 19,90,000/-. On the other hand, Shri L. Dileshwara Rao has explained before the Assessing Officer that he has given ₹ 30 lakhs in three installments i.e. ₹ 10 lakh each. When Assessing Officer asked the assessee in respect of amount received from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and also bank entries, the assessee has failed to explain the same before the Assessing Officer, even before the ld.CIT(A) and even before us also no explanation is given. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him that he has received ₹ 30 lakhs from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and therefore the ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
