Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 695 - AT - Income TaxAdditions u/s 69A - Held that:- In the present case on hand, though assessee filed cash flow statement and also affidavit from his wife affirming having income from tuitions and interest, he failed to furnish cogent evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee claimed to have savings from his salary income and agricultural income. His claim that his life time savings was kept in the form of cash and deposited into bank account is quite opposite to the human probability. The explanations offered by the assessee to prove the sources for cash deposit is purely a guess work, but not supported by any cogent materials. On perusal of documents filed by the assessee in support of sources for cash deposits, i.e. his cash inflow, cash outflow and savings and mode of savings and then applied to the test of human probability, it fails to pass the test of human probability. When assessee makes a claim and which is not supported by any evidences or evidences are inadequate, then human probability test is one of the important tests laid down by the highest court of India in order to check the genuineness of the transactions. For example, a person whose annual income is ₹ 20,000/- with which he runs his living show claims that he purchased a diamond necklace worth ₹ 2 lakhs and informed the A.O. that he has bought it from out of his savings. Now when we apply the human probability test, we can easily infer that the assessee cannot have bought that necklace out of his income. In the present case on hand, though assessee claims that he had sources for cash deposits, the sources claimed and corresponding evidences fails to pass the human probability test. The CIT(A) after carefully examined the evidences filed by the assessee has elaborately discussed each and every item of source claimed by the assessee and after considering the facts and circumstances, allowed relief of ₹ 3,00,000/- and confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 36,04,000/-. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Hence, we inclined to upheld the order of CIT(A) - Decided against assessee
|