9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s nothing to show that he did furnish any details. Therefore, the cash deposits, which are admitted by him to be from real estate business or rental income, have also to be taken into account. It was the duty of the assessee to disclose these aspects before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad or the Tribunal because these are within his exclusive knowledge. Having admitted that he was also doing real estate business and was also having rental income, and by not furnishing any details of the same, he cannot blame the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal for drawing conclusion that his source of money for making deposits other than agricultural income, is the real estate business. No doubt in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act, this Court has power to interfere with the findings of fact which are vitiated by use of inadmissible material and if a decision is based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or irrelevant material or if there is perversity, but the instant case does not fall in any of these categories. The several opportunities given to the assessee to persuade him to reveal the sources of income have already been mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.06-10-2016 was issued informing the assessee that his case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 had been taken up for consideration and the assessee was directed to file information for completion of assessment and to show cause why the entire cash deposit of ₹ 83,78,700/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and the entire cash deposit of ₹ 56,60,450/- for the assessment year 2010-11 should not be treated as income from unexplicable sources and directing the assessee to file objections. 9. Even to this show case, there was no explanation from the assessee. 10. Another set of final show cause notices dt.06-12-2016 were issued to the assessee. 11. In response to this final show cause notice, assessee addressed a letter dt.08-12-2016, which was received in Inward Section of the Income Tax Department, Range-4, Hyderabad on 26-12-2016. 12. In the said explanation, the assessee contended that he received the notice dt.21-04-2016; that he was furnishing his account details; that he was not carrying on any business and all amounts stated in the Bank Accounts are solely from agricultural income; and that as he was the only male member of the family, all expenses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawals during the year under consideration which explain the deposits made into the Bank Accounts; that the Assessing Officer should have considered the fact that peak credit in the Bank Account is much lesser and the entire amount of peak is less than the agricultural income determined by the Assessing Officer. 18. By separate orders dt.01-03-2018, both the appeals were dismissed. The appellate authority held that before him, the assessee had submitted that agricultural land owned by the assessee was sold, but no evidence was brought before him that any property was sold during the year relevant year; that the Assessing Officer had allowed an extent of ₹ 30,00,000/- as agricultural income by estimation, but the assessee did not accept it ; and the assessee also did not bring out any evidence to show that the agricultural receipts during the relevant financial year were more than ₹ 1.00 crore. 19. He also held that assessee did not submit any details of crops sold and income received out of the agricultural pursuits, and the attempt of the assessee to justify ₹ 26,60,450/- as agricultural income for the assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 53,78,700/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to ₹ 30,00,000/- already treated as agricultural income by the Assessing Officer) which were re-deposited into the bank account. The present Appeals 24. Assailing the same, these appeals are filed. 25. Learned counsel for assessee strenuously contended that the approach of the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad as well as the Tribunal is erroneous and that conclusions reached by the Tribunal with regard to the source of deposits made in the Bank Accounts is perverse. 26. It is also contended that the said authorities did not mention the provision of law under which the alleged income is assessable and that they had ignored the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. PK Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC). 27. We have considered the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad as well as the Tribunal. 28. The statement made by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Unit-I, Hyderabad in response to summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Act has also been placed before us by the counsel for the assessee. In the said statement, to Question No.5 'please give the sources of your income and explain the cash deposits more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business and was also having rental income, and by not furnishing any details of the same, he cannot blame the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal for drawing conclusion that his source of money for making deposits other than agricultural income, is the real estate business. 31. No doubt in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act, this Court has power to interfere with the findings of fact which are vitiated by use of inadmissible material and if a decision is based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or irrelevant material or if there is perversity, but the instant case does not fall in any of these categories. The several opportunities given to the assessee to persuade him to reveal the sources of income have already been mentioned in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee therefore cannot have any complaint against the Department when he was not furnishing all the details as sought by the Department though he agreed to do so in the statement given by him to the Department on 16-10-2015. 32. In PK Noorjahan (1 supra) relied upon by the assessee, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 69 of the Act and observed that the word 'may' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
