Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 178 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits in bank - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Though it was stated before Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) that Power of Attorney was executed by her husband in favour of the assessee but copy of the power of Attorney has not been produced before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) should have been little careful in asking for the power of Attorney but he simply believed this theory without examining the Power of Attorney. Before us also a copy of Power of Attorney is not filed. It is very difficult to ascertain in what circumstances the Power of Attorney was given by her husband. This fact itself is sufficient to disbelieve the story of Agreement to Sell entered by the assessee. Normally, no purchaser would agree to purchase the land from attorney holder until and unless such Attorney is duly registered or the persons owning the land becomes a confirming party in the Agreement to sell. As observed above, Power of Attorney has no been filed before us and the perusal of the Agreement to sell clearly shows that Shri I.D. Mehta who is husband of the assessee is not a confirming party in the Agreement to Sell. The perusal of the affidavits would show that exactly the same language has been used in all the affidavits. All the four persons have not stated how much money each one of them has paid. No specific source of the payment has been explained and it has been simply stated that they are agriculturists. When four persons have paid a sum of ₹ 43 lakhs the Assessing Officer could have verified the sources only if such persons were produced before him. We fail to understand how Ld. CIT(A) believed these affidavits particulars when the Assessing Officer had insisted on producing these persons. The affidavits are clearly in the nature of self serving documents and cannot be believed. Further there is not evidence why the deal did not mature. How the amounts were returned whether any receipts were taken or not is not clear. All these circumstances make the whole story not plausible. In our opinion, it seems to be only a story to explain the deposits of cash and does not have any substance. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore that to Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|