TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee firm have not been found satisfactory and Smt. Sindhuja Mishra failed to prove it – Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983 (2) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD High Court] - the source of fund in the hands of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra could not be explained, the order of CIT(A) is not sustainable – Decided in favour of revenue. Money received did not match entries – Held that:- The details filed by assessee during the appellate proceedings regarding money received from M/s IIHT Systems Ltd. and M/s Senani Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. do not find matching with the entries as found reflected with the sources of capital contribution of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra and Smt. Sindhuja Mishra has also not furnished any documenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained capital contribution by Smt. Sindhuja Mishra, one of the partners. He failed to appreciate that capital introduced is unaccounted money stated to be received from persons who are merely name lenders. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was justified to inquire into the source of the source of funds. 2. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing. 3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Girish Narain Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2005] 274 ITR 405 (All) (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (All) 4. As against this, L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Jagmohan Ram Chandra vs. CIT (Supra). In that case, the amount being two cash credits in the books of the firm in the name of two partners were added in the hands of the firm as well as in the hands of the concerned partners and still, it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition in the total income of the assessee firm even though said amount was also assessed in the hands of the two partners. Hence, in our considered opinion, this later judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is required to be followed in the facts of the present case in preference to earlier judgment followed by CIT(A). Still it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish various details being copy of account of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra with IIHT Systems Ltd. and Senani Colonizers Builders (P) Ltd. The assessee was also asked to furnish cash flow statement to show deposit of ₹ 1 lac in cash in her bank account but no compliance was made in this regard. Even as per remand report, it is reported by the Assessing Officer that the evidence filed by the assessee are insufficient to prove the genuineness of the sources. A clear finding is given by CIT(A) in para 4.5 of his order that the source for the capital contribution of Smt. Sindhuja Mishra with the assessee firm have not been found satisfactory and Smt. Sindhuja Mishra failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er ground which the appellant may take during the course of hearing with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. Regarding the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, it was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that at least cheque received from these two companies i.e. M/s IIHT Systems Ltd. and M/s Senani Colonizers Builders Pvt. Ltd. should be accepted as valid explanation. Regarding the remaining grounds, he fairly conceded that rejection of books has not been challenged. 11. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a clear finding is given by CIT(A) in para 4.5 of his order that the source for capital contribution of Smt. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 3, we find that the assessee has not challenged the rejection of books of account. We also find that it is noted by CIT(A) in para 5.1 that the assessee has not produced stock register along with details of cash purchases with name and address of the party and vouchers even though number of opportunities were given by the A. O. In the absence of stock register and details of cash purchases etc. this small addition of ₹ 4,06,579/- is neither excessive nor unreasonable. In addition to that, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of 20% of the expenses debited to profit loss account on the basis that no vouchers have been produced by the assessee in respect of these expenses. In respect of these expenses, neither any evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
