9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Himmatram Laxminarain [ 1985 (8) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that in a case where it was found that a secret business was conducted wherein the assessee has invested a certain amount and it was held that such amount was assessable as income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. Hon ble Patna High court in the case of Deo Narayan Bhadani [ 1986 (4) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT] wherein certain cash deposits were made in a bank by the karta of the assessee-HUF. The explanation that the source of such deposits was withdrawals from a bigger HUF was found to be false. There was no evidence that the karta had any source of income as an individual. It was held that the amount of such deposits were assessable as income of the assessee-HUF. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah [ 1994 (11) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the addition made by the A.O as the assessee s undisclosed income invested in the purchase of jackpot winning ticket - In the case of Bhawarlal C. Bafna [ 2002 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the assessee has failed to explain the cash balances in spite of several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent head of income for addition, when it was never department's case to make any addition under provisions of chapter VI, especially section 69 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellate order may, therefore, be declared bad-in-Iaw and AO may not be allowed to change head of income of addition. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in traveling beyond scope of assessment order and suggesting that change of head of income is defect curable under section 292BB, when it was never department's case to make any addition under provisions of chapter VI, especially section 69 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellate order may, therefore, be declared bad-in-Iaw and AO may not be allowed to change head of income of addition. 5. Appellant craves permission to add to, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The ld. CIT(A) observed and held as follows: 5.3 The facts and ground of the case, assessment order and the written submission have been perused carefully. It is seen that during the year under consideration, the appellant made cash deposits of Rs. 54,79,5001- in his savings bank accounts as under:- Sr.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 40,000 7. -do- 100504180007450 14-04-2010 500 Total 54,79,500 The appellant further argued that, since the sale proceeds received from selling of agricultural lands which were subsequently deposited in the bank account also pertake the character of agricultural income only and the same is exempted from taxation. Taking this plea, the appellant requested to delete the addition made by the AO. 5.3.2 In support of his claim, during the appeal proceedings, the appellant only submitted single copies of only Index-II of 3 sale deeds (clearly not visible) and copy of ITR Acknowledgement and computation of income for the year under consideration. The argument of the appellant that the sale proceeds received were subsequently deposited in the bank account in cash is not acceptable for the simple reason that the AO has already observed during the assessment proceedings that the entire amount of sale proceeds were received by cheque, as such the appellant's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee could not produce any evidences regarding the source of cash deposits of Rs. 54,79,500/- over and above the aforestated full sale consideration received in cheques and therefore, the revenue added the same in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources. As evident from para 5.3.2 of the ld. CIT(A) s order that the assessee only submitted single copy of the Index-II of three sale deeds which were even not clearly visible, copy of ITR acknowledgement and computation of income for the year under consideration. The argument of the assessee that the sale proceeds received were subsequently deposited in the bank account in cash is not acceptable since it has already been examined by the ld. A.O and upheld by the ld. CITA) that the entire sale proceeds were received by cheques and therefore, for this additional cash deposit, the assessee should have explained the sources of such income. In this case, the assessee should have produced the basic evidences such as payment schedule, bank statements, sale deed copies, confirmation letter for having received/paid cash etc., and in this exercise, the assessee failed miserably. Even it has been brought on facts that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
