9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 23,39,420/- There was nothing on record to support the fact that the amounts withdrawn from the salary account were re-deposited. The FDRs of the appellant indicated that he was intelligently investing the amount with the bank. The benefit of re-deposits and of accumulated funds for the previous year has already been given. The question raised is a question of fact, as the issue is only regarding appreciation of evidence. No interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Tribunal affirming the addition Addition for cash deposited in joint bank account - Held that:- The question raised is one of fact. Addition made was on appreciation of facts. The appellant kept on denying that he had any joint account with his grand-fat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AND MR. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. For The Appellant : Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. According to the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal :- (i) Whether the ITAT is justified in confirming addition of ₹ 15,49,420/- without appreciating the cash-in-hand available as on 01.04.2010 to the extent of ₹ 10,94,260/- and without doubting the veracity of cash book even by the Departmental Representative after granting partial relief of ₹ 5 lakh without appreciatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 25.02.2014 finalised the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO made additions of ₹ 20,49,420/- and ₹ 14,40,000/-, the amounts deposited in cash in Bank accounts, as income from undisclosed sources. Interest received from FDRs not disclosed in the return was also added. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana [CIT (A)] dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.11.2015. 6. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal vide its order dated 06.03.2017. The addition made of ₹ 20,49,420/- was reduced by ₹ 5 lakh. The other addition made of ₹ 14,40,000/- was affirmed. Re : Question No. (i) 7. Question No. (i) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed additional evidence before CIT (A). The same was considered. Remand report was asked for. The CIT (A) considered the facts and the evidence produced. The claim of the appellant of having opening balance of ₹ 1,65,850/- from salaries earned upto 31.03.2008 was rejected after verifying bank details from the system of department and taking into account the withdrawals made. The claim that appellant had received some money for labour contract from M/s Parkash Rice General Mills was rejected as he failed to substantiate that there was some actual receipt of money. Copy of the Profit Loss Account of M/s Parkash Rice General Mills was not produced. There was no proof with the appellant to show that there was cash in hand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never disclosed the said bank account to the authorities. The authorities had Annual Information Return (AIR) information. The appellant denied having any such joint account with Shri Om Parkash. The authorities confronted him with the bank statement and asked for the source of cash deposits made. At that stage, the assessee replied that the account was of his maternal grand- father, who expired on 10.11.2011 and all transactions related to his grand- father only. It was stated that his name was added just to assist his 85 years old maternal grand-father for operating the bank account. In his statement, the appellant stated that the source of income of his grand-father was only rental income of ₹ 3,630/- per month. But during the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT (A). 15. Before the Tribunal, the appellant relied upon a bank certificate dated 30.08.2016 and copy of capital account of Shri Om Parkash. The said documents were produced first time before the Tribunal without any application for permission to produce additional evidence. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the AO and the CIT (A) regarding addition made of ₹ 14,40,000/-. 16. The question raised is one of fact. Addition made was on appreciation of facts. The appellant kept on denying that he had any joint account with his grand-father. His claim that his name was added in the account only for helping his old maternal grand-father for operating the account is belied by the fact that the ration card produced showed that Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
