9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was huge cash deposit on a single day, therefore, there was no merit in the claim of the assessee that a sum of ₹ 61,00,000/- was withdrawn from the partnership firm s account. Gift said to be received by the assessee from her father-in-law genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors or the donors were not established. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Cash receipt from the assessee s husband - the source claimed by Shri Vasudevan such as receipt of cash advance earlier for machinery purchase from Shri S.K. Pandian, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 22-1-2019 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Coimbatore, dated 30.10.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer found that there was a deposit of ₹ 1,21,00,000/- in cash on 27.11.2008 in the Savings Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm account clearly shows the withdrawal of funds, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. counsel, ₹ 20,00,000/- received from four persons as land lease could not have been rejected since sufficient evidences are filed before the lower authorities. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed a gift of ₹ 12,00,000/- from father-in-law as source for deposit. This was also rejected without any reasonable cause. 4. We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, there was a deposit of ₹ 1,21,00,000/- as on 27.11.2008. The Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the entries in the books of account are afterthought and there was huge cash deposit on a single day, therefore, there was no merit in the claim of the assessee that a sum of ₹ 61,00,000/- was withdrawn from the partnership firm s account. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 5. Now coming to gift of ₹ 12,00,000/- said to be received by the assessee from her father-in-law Shri Appachiappa Gounder, the assessee appears to have filed a unregistered gift deed dated 08.11.2008 before the Assessing Officer. A copy of such gift deed is not filed before this Tribunal either by the assessee or by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer that attained finality. Since the source for creditors was found to be not available for making payment of ₹ 23,00,000/- to the assessee, the assessment in the case of assessee has to be confirmed. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 7. Now coming to land lease of ₹ 20,00,000/-, the assessee claims that due to pollution control problem, the partnership firm M/s Balu Process decided to close down the operation and the land and building were leased out and an advance of ₹ 20,00,000/- was received from one Shri Sundaram, Shri Shyam Jayakumar, Shri Muruganantham and Smt. Rajeswari. Admittedly, the land and buildi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
