Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1078 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment under section 69 - case of the assessee is that he has received ₹ 7 lakhs from Shri P. Surya Prakasa Rao towards advance for sale of assessee’s property, which was utilized for the purpose of deposit in the account of fixed deposit - Held that:- When Assessing Officer asked Shri P. Surya Prakasa Rao, he submitted that he was a retired employee and borrowed money from his friends and pledged his wife’s jewellery and advanced to the assessee, but not able to explain what is the amount borrowed and what is gold pledged, by which, how much amount borrowed, has not given any details before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee failed to explain creditworthiness of Shri P. Surya Prakasa Rao and genuineness of the transaction also. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, simply filing confirmations, is not a sufficient to discharge burden casted upon him to explain the source in the fixed deposits. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus in respect of ₹ 7 lakhs received from Shri P. Surya Prakasa Rao and therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition and the same is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). So far as amount received from Shri L. Dileshwara Rao,Shri L. Dileshwara Rao has explained before the Assessing Officer that he has given ₹ 30 lakhs in three installments i.e. ₹ 10 lakh each. When Assessing Officer asked the assessee in respect of amount received from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and also bank entries, the assessee has failed to explain the same before the Assessing Officer, even before the ld.CIT(A) and even before us also no explanation is given. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him that he has received ₹ 30 lakhs from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and therefore the ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Credit in the assessee’s bank account with Shalantri Branch - assessee has stated that this credit represent advance received from one P. Appa Rao for sale of Relliveedhi site - Held that:- Before the ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that Shri P. Appa Rao is a Manson and had given an amount of ₹ 2,96,500/- by way of advance for purchase of acre 2.5 cents of land, and that Shri P.Appa Rao expressed his inability to mobilize further funds, the transaction was cancelled and the amount was returned on 01/07/2009. Before the ld. CIT(A) except stating that advance received in respect of purchase of land from P. Appa Rao, who is not able to mobilize the funds, the amount was returned, no evidence is filed. Even before us, the assessee has not filed any evidence. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him that he has received the said amount as advance and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Assessee appeal dismissed.
|