9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then only the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged and the onus then shifts to the AO. In the case on hand, the amount deposited whereas the document shows only the value - Thus, the appellant though disclosed the source of the cash deposit in the bank, he has not discharged the burden of proof on him. Hence the decision reported by the counsel for the appellant has no application. Tribunal looked into all the aspects and found that the AO as well as the first appellate authority failed to give credit to the amount which was shown in the sale deed and thereby it was partly allowed reducing the total income - we are of the opinion that the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. - ITA 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce evidence regarding the source of income to prove the cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited in the bank. Though ample opportunity was given to the assessee to prove the correlation between the sale price of the land belonging to his wife and the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited, the assessee failed to do so. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the source of income, an assessment order was passed on 12.3.2014 whereby he was directed to pay a balance tax of Rs.12,29,570/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order. The appellate authority also concurred with the finding of the Income Tax Officer. The assessee thereafter challenged the order of the first appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order in ITA No.33/Coch/2017 dated 22.6.2017 for AY-2011-12 erroneous in law and perverse and hence unsustainable? 4. Heard the learned counsel Adv.Nish John for the appellant and the learned standing counsel Shri. Christopher Abraham for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the sale deed has shown only Rs.3,35,700/- as sales consideration, the sale in fact was for Rs.31 lakhs and one lakh received at the time of agreement and Rs.30,00,000/- at the time of sale deed on 20.1.2011. The said amount was deposited in the bank account of the appellant, since the assessee s wife did not have any bank account. The counsel also submitted that to the notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be seen that the value in the document is only Rs.3,35,700/- and hence the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- cannot be attributed to the sale consideration of the property. He also submitted that even after giving repeated opportunities to substantiate the contention the assessee failed to prove the said fact to the Assessing Officer with cogent evidence. 8. Though the appellant has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal specifically pointing out that it was the amount received by his wife, which was deposited in the bank, the Tribunal did not accept the same as it was against the recitals in the sale deed. 9. The only contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited in the appellant s account is the sale value of 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
