9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], dated 27.02.2015. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.2,46,00,648/- on account of unsecured loans received in from of gold and jewellery of Rs.1,89,23,818/- and unsecured loans of Rs.56,76,830/- treated as alleged unexplained and non-genuine u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67,018 Total 1,89,23,818 4. It was also noted by the assessing officer that assessee has during the year under consideration, taken loan from the following persons: Sr. No. Name of the persons Amount in Rs. 1. Kalpeshbhai S. Soni HUF 5,00,000 2. Shri Gunvantbhai K. Jadhav 5,00,000 3. Smt. Mamtaben K. Soni 3,41,000 4. Manishbhai Soni HUF 4,50,000 5. Smt. Bhavanaben M. Soni 3,00,000 6. Smt. Pushpaben S. Soni 3,50,000 7. Sureshchandra M. Soni 3,50,000 8. Shri Bharatbhai S. Soni 9,00,000 9. Shri Santilal Mangilal Soni 9,00,000 10. Shri Nareshbhai Parekh 8,00,000 11. Shri Jennis Patel 2,85,830 Total 56,76,830 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as other loan of Rs.56,76,830/- claimed to have been received by the assessee from the above mentioned eleven persons is concerned, the assessee could not submit the corroborate evidence as called for. Therefore, under these circumstances the same was also treated as unexplained and non-genuine by the assessing officer. Since both, the loan of Rs.1,89,23,818/- and Rs.56,76,830/- totaling to Rs.2,46,00,648/- ( Rs.1,89,23,818 + Rs.56,76,830) were treated as unexplained and non-genuine, therefore assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs.2,46,00,648/-, under section 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese ladies would have been liable to pay wealth tax. In the earlier capital accounts, no such jewellery was shown by these persons, hence these are bogus transactions to cheat the Revenue. The ld DR further pointed out that most of the Indian jewellery contains precious and semi-precious stones, jadau work, synthetic pieces etc. and very rarely would the gross weight and net weight be same. The claim itself fails all tests of probabilities of human behavior. The ld DR also contended that since the assessee has submitted additional evidences therefore the matter may be restored to the file of the assessing officer to examine these additional evidences. 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala &Ors.(1969 SCR (1) 317) that "the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules" and in the same case the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norffolk and Ors. (1949) 1 All. England Reports 108): "There are in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, I do not derive much assistance from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
