Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 487 - AT - Income TaxAdditions of unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- The assessee had deposited ₹ 4 lakhs on 18.09.2009. A sum of ₹ 3,90,000/- is stated to have been returned by her husband. The CIT(Appeals) does not reject veracity of this plea. It is further seen that the assessee had deposits a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs as on 20.10.2009 over and above the aforesaid sum of ₹ 4 lakhs. Remaining amounts are corresponding deposits and withdrawals instances. The assessee claims to be earning a monthly milk book income of ₹ 20,000/-. She failed to substantiate it in the course of assessment. The Assessing Officer does not reject this plea altogether. But only cites lack of sufficient material. It is also an undisputed fact that the CIT(Appeals)’s findings do not specifically deal with that of Assessing Officer’s conclusion. In these circumstances, we feel that interest of justice would be met in case this peak credit of ₹ 6 lakhs is further modified to ₹ 3 lakhs only. More so, when the lower appellate order accepts genuineness of ₹ 4 lakhs deposited on 18.09.2009 leaving behind a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs only. We reiterate that peak credit in this case is `6,27,500/-. These peculiar circumstance result in modification of this addition to ₹ 3 lakhs only. The assessee’s ground partly succeeds. Unexplained fixed deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs made in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank made in cash - Held that:- The assessee submits that neither of the authority below has summoned her maternal grand father. This procedural plea is not supported by any material. Once the Assessing Officer had examined all of her pleas at length in assessment order, it was incumbent on the assessee to have prayed for necessary remand report in the lower appellate proceedings or to take sufficient measures for proving authenticity of her claim. This was never done. In these circumstances, we observe that this procedural plea deserves to be rejected in the absence of sufficient material on record. It is also not her case that of the lower authority has not complied with principles of natural justice and denied sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the assessee’s corresponding ground fails. Third addition of interest income of `4,052/- on said fixed deposits is also decided against her. - Decided against assessee.
|