9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. We find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is in accordance with law. We find that the AR of the assessee submitting that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C is not correct, is no basis and deserves to be rejected. Addition u/s 68 - ingenuity of bank deposits - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee except confirmation letters, no relevant details are filed either before the ld. CIT(A) nor before us to show that the creditworthiness of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction, simply filing the details in a tabular form which shows the extent of land and business carried by the assessee is not sufficient to discharge the burden casted upon him to show that the deposits in his bank account are a genuine transactions and the same is received from the creditor who is having a sufficient funds. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail and addition was made under section 68 correctly Addition sale of lorry as unexplained income - why the sale of lorry is not to be treated as his income as he is fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam, all dated 28/11/2016 for the Assessment Years 2001-02, 2003-2004, 2004-05, 2006-07 2007-08. Since facts and issue are common, clubbed and heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 328/VIZ/2017 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is working as an Executive in A.P. Tanners Ltd. and he is also proprietary concern called M/s. Raja Cable Network Raju Networks and also partner in M/s. R.K. Constructions. A search seizure operations were conducted in the case of M/s. R.K. Real Estate Group on 06/10/2006. During the course of search seizure proceedings some incriminating documents and cash relating to the assessee were found and seized. Hence, notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued to the assessee on 14/08/2007 for six assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2001-02 to 2006-07 immediately preceding the financial year in which search action was initiated, to file his return of income on or before 31/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) Credit worthiness of the loan creditor is not proved as no documents like agricultural land holdings, copies of Income tax Returns filed etc. are not produced. (It may be noted that none of the papers prepared and submitted are signed by the assessee nor the assessee's A. R). From the above it is seen that the decision of the assessing officer in adding the entire loan amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 for all the assessment years 2001-02,2003-04,2004-05 2006-07 is in order as the assessee could not furnish evidences to prove the transaction as genuine and also creditworthiness of the creditors. In the light of the above, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is requested to decide the case on merits. 4. The ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to file objections, if any on the remand report. In response to that, assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed confirmation letters, source of income of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction, but the Assessing Officer without making any enquiry simply submitted a remand report justifying the additions, is not correct. It was also submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that all the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has mere filed the confirmation letters without establishing the 'creditworthiness' at 'genuineness' of the creditors. 9.5) I have carefully examined the facts and the additional evidence filed by the appellant, remand report of the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the appellant. The regors of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act are strict and stringent due to t e that it is a charging section by itself. The section imposes certain legal responsibility on the appellant with regard to the nature and source thereof to 1 satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this background, let me examine the case at hand. In the first instance, the appellant had failed to explain or establish two crucial factors i.e. creditworthiness and genuineness of loan creditors due to the fact that he is away in USA during the assessment proceedings. The appellant was given adequate opportunity under Rule 46A to explain the case or establish his claim before the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings. The appellant has filed confirmation letters of loan creditors which is repetition and nothing new about it. Besides, the bank account of appellant and loan creditors and deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors by merely filing the confirmation letters. In the case of cash credits, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is sine quonon while examining the credits u/s.68 of the Act. Regarding the rebuttal or any other material that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record to deny claim of the appellant, it is my finding that the appellant has not fully discharged his legal obligation to prove the three factors i.e. identity‟, creditworthiness‟ and genuineness‟ of creditors. Accordingly, concurring with the view of the Assessing Officer, the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- is confirmed. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional grounds and submitted that assessment order passed under section 143 r.w.s. 153C is not correct. The Assessing Officer ought to have been passed assessment order under section 153A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant grounds for admission of additional evidence are reproduced as under:- 1) The appellant/applicant preferred appeal against the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it is only conducted in the case of M/s. R.K. Real Estates, therefore, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. We find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is in accordance with law. We find that the AR of the assessee submitting that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C is not correct, is no basis and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is rejected. 9. Insofar as merits of the case is concerned, the assessee has not produced the creditors before the Assessing Officer because the assessee was not available in India and he was in abroad. Therefore, the identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was also not proved. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed a tabular form which shows the name and details of the creditor, land holding of the creditor, business carried by the creditor and filed confirmation letter. The same was forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer has examined all the details and submitted a remand report to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the issue in detail and addition was made under section 68 of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). The facts and issues involved in respect of addition made under section 68 of the Act in ITA Nos. 329 to 331/VIZ/2017 are similar, and in ITA No. 332/VIZ/2017 except an amount of ₹ 4.00 received from Smt. C. Varalakshmi are also similar. The assessee is not able to establish creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, therefore we find that no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) except the following grounds, adjudicated separately. ITA No.331/VIZ/2017 10. Ground Nos. 7 8 raised by the assessee relates to sale of lorry at ₹ 3,20,000/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the AR of the assessee show-caused as to why the sale of lorry is not to be treated as his income as he is filing his return of income under section 44AE. The AR of the assessee did not produce any evidence in respect of claim and he is not able to explain the genuineness of the claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has treated the sale of lorry as unexplained income amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etail and held as under:- 9.3) On perusal of the excel sheet filed by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant is holding account in Karnataka Bank Ltd. It is seen that on 08.05.2006, there is a deposit of ₹ 1,00,000/-, on 15.05.2006, ₹ 10,00,000/- was deposited, on 18.05.2006, ₹ 1,00,000/- was deposited (this entry was not found in the bank account), on 24.05.2006, ₹ 3,00,000/- was deposited, on 13.06.2006 ₹ 5,500/- was deposited and on 21.08.2006 ₹ 4,00,000/- was deposited. The total deposits of ₹ 19,05,500/- are by nature cash deposits. It appears from thedetails filed before the Assessing Officer and also before me that the said loan amounts were received from various persons such as Sri K. Satya Mahendra, Sri V. Gandhi, Sri Y. Vishnu Vardhana Rao, Sri A. Venkata Rao, Sri C. Satyanarayana, Smt. K. Krishna Kumari, Sri M.Basava Sanakara Rao and Smt. C. Varalakshmi without any interest. It is also seen from the bank account that the appellant had withdrawn these amounts by 'self' either immediately or with small passage of time. All the entries are in the form of cash. It is not known whether the Assessing Officer has invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), it is very clear that the amounts have been withdrawn from the bank. We find that the assessee has failed to establish a fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of Margadarshi chit fund, the very same amount has been received by the assessee and deposited in the bank. Due to cash amount was deposited and immediately withdrawn the same. Therefore, the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is rejected. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on this count is also confirmed. 16. The assessee has raised one more objection in respect of ground No.1 relates to total addition of ₹ 2,28,690/-. It was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the amount is not belonging to him and was received from his niece, who is residing in USA for the purpose of repayment of her educational loan, the same is not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing that the amounts received from his niece for repayment of educational loan. As there is a festival in Vizianagaram, the assessee haswithdrawn the amount and subsequently the same was found during the course of search and seizure operations. The Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
