9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llage Headman. The statement of the Village Headman can at best only corroborate the stand which department based on evidence, if there were other compelling evidence. As incumbent on the part of the Income Tax Department to have summoned the said Mr.Thangasamy of Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District and verified and confirmed whether the said person had indeed given the statement which was produced by the Appellant and if so whether the statement given by the said person was true or not. Although the department is governed by preponderance of probability and not by strict rules of evidence, yet it was incumbent to have secured the presence of the said person. They should have cross examined him before disbelieving the statement. Therefore, an issuance of summon to Mr.Thangasamy who had given statement by the Income Tax department is not sufficient. Income Tax department should have secured the presence of Mr.Thangasamy to answer to the summons and should have confronted him and contradicted the content of the statement of Mr.Thangasamy produced by the appellant by way of cross examination. Therefore, without cross examination, the statement of Mr.Thangasamy can neither be disbeliev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation letter are not supported by the details of payment and bank statment of the assessee. We do not find any merit in this ground of appeal, the same is dismissed: 9. The next issue in appeal is un-explained investment of Rs. 11,03,608/- in the residential property. The addition has been made for making investment in purchase of second residential house at Mogappair, Chennai. It has come on record that the said house has been purchased by the wife of the assessee from her own sources. Therefore, addition made by the Revenue in the hands of the assessee for funding of the said house does not sustain. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the allowed. 10. In both the appeals, the assessees have impugned the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B 234C. The levy of interest under aforesaid sections is consequential. Therefore, this ground in the appeals of the assessees is dismissed. In view of our detailed findings, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms . 3. Dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- as unexplained income from purported sale of casurina trees under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. At the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total sum of Rs. 22 lakhs was paid to the appellant after deducting a 3% commission of Rs. 68,000 /-. during the relevant financial year. 9. Thereafter, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Order passed on 29.12.2011. The Assessing Officer had concluded as under:- Further, in the 'Adangal' given by VAO, the land owned by the assessee at Reddymangudy village was categorized as Tharisu which means Barren Land . From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very much obvious that the assessee has introduced a person Mr.Thangasamy to accommodate his wrong claim. Also the assessee did not give any reply to the question as to how he treated the alleged receipt on sale of trees as casual and non- recurring receipt. Thus, there is no merits in the assessee's objection for treating the above said Rs. 22,00,000/- as unexplained credit. Therefore this is added to the income returned as unexplained credit of Rs. 22,00,000/-. D) On comparison of the balance sheets of the assessee as at 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009, it is seen that the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 2,93,000 as Imprest Account in the balance as at 31.3.2008 and Rs. 5,13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned Order. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. In this case, the Department has disbelieved the letter of the person who had given a statement in favour of the appellant without subjecting the said person to any cross examination. 12. Therefore, the substantial question of law to be answered in this appeal is whether a statement of a person who had given a statement in favour of the appellant can be disbelieved and discredited long after it was given without cross examination of the said person by a mere reliance on an enquiry Report of the Income Tax Officer based on information gathered by the Income Tax Officer from the Village Headman. 13. The evidence which department has gathered is long after the felling of trees and sale by the appellant by placing reliance on the statement of the Village Headman. The statement of the Village Headman can at best only corroborate the stand which department based on evidence, if there were other compelling evidence. 14. It was incumbent on the part of the Income Tax Department to have summoned the said Mr.Thangasamy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
