9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the same is confirmed. Unexplained Cash deposit - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that what was paid by the assessee is through cash cheque and money was received across the counter in Catholic Syrian Bank. There is no evidence of making payment to Erode party as claimed by Shri Nagarajan. There is no evidence of return of money by Erode party to Shri Nagarajan. Moreover, whether Shri Nagarajan was able to repay the money to the assessee as claimed? These facts were not established by the assessee. For cash credit, the assessee has to establish the identity of party, creditworthiness of party and genuineness of transaction. In this case, even though the assessee claims that money was paid to Shri Nagarajan, the genuineness of transaction of repayment and creditworthiness of Shri Nagarajan to repay the amount was not established. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Cash deposit - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that he received a sum from one Shri D. Palanisamy. However, the assessee failed to establish the identity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kulam Chit. According to the Ld. counsel, ultimately, the pollution control plant could not be installed, therefore, the said Shri S.K. Pandian returned ₹ 46,50,000/- by cash during the year under consideration. According to the Ld. counsel, the amount received from Shri S.K. Pandian was deposited in the bank account. Referring to page 9 of the paper-book, the Ld.counsel submitted that Shri S.K. Pandian confirmed that he received ₹ 46,50,000/- from the assessee through cheque and by cash. 4. On the contrary, Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee by a letter dated 26.12.2011, informed the Assessing Officer that Shri S.K. Pandian passed away one year back and therefore, he could not produce confirmation letter from him. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., it is not known how the assessee was able to produce the confirmation letter which is available at page 9 of the paper-book. In fact, according to the Ld. D.R., this confirmation letter was not produced before the Assessing Officer and the assessee in categorical term submitted before the Assessing Officer that due to death of Shri S.K. Pandian he cannot produce any conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an advance of ₹ 12,50,000/- was given through cheque to one Shri R. Nagarajan for installation of pollution control plant during the assessment year 2008-09. According to the Ld. counsel, the borrowed funds of HDFC Bank and M/s Sree Gokulam Chit were used by the assessee to advance ₹ 12,50,000/- to Shri R. Nagarajan. However, according to the Ld. counsel, the said Shri Nagarajan returned the money during the year under consideration, therefore, the same was deposited in the bank account. 8. We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The assessee claims that he advanced a sum of ₹ 12,50,000/- to one Shri R. Nagarajan for installation of pollution control plant. The same claim was made with regard to ₹ 46,50,000/-. The said Shri Nagarajan was examined by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2011. He admitted before the Assessing Officer that he is only acting as real estate agent for brokerage. Even though the said Shri Nagarajan claimed before the Assessing Officer during the course of examination that the money said to be received from the assessee was advanced to one proprietor of dying unit at Erode, he could not produce any evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/- from Shri D. Palanisamy in three equal instalments. According to the Ld. D.R., the identity of Shri Palanisamy was not established. The creditworthiness of Shri Palanisamy was also not established. The genuineness of transaction was not established. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the adnmade by the assessee. 13. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that he received a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- from one Shri D. Palanisamy. However, the assessee failed to establish the identity of Shri Palanisamy, creditworthiness of Shri Palanisamy and the genuineness of transaction. In the absence of any details and failure of the assessee to establish the identity of party which is required to be established in respect of cash credit, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 14. The next issue arises for consideration is denial of exemption under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
