Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 967 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - unexplained cash - benefit of re-deposit of cash - Held that:- Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that though the authorities below have given the benefit of ₹ 3 lakh of re-deposit of cash but have not considered that during the previous years, the appellant would have accumulated funds, for which a further benefit of ₹ 5 lakh was given. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no specific evidence to support the opening balance of ₹ 8,86,639/- as on 01.04.2010. The evidence was not there to explain the cash deposits made to the tune of ₹ 23,39,420/- There was nothing on record to support the fact that the amounts withdrawn from the salary account were re-deposited. The FDRs of the appellant indicated that he was intelligently investing the amount with the bank. The benefit of re-deposits and of accumulated funds for the previous year has already been given. The question raised is a question of fact, as the issue is only regarding appreciation of evidence. No interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Tribunal affirming the addition Addition for cash deposited in joint bank account - Held that:- The question raised is one of fact. Addition made was on appreciation of facts. The appellant kept on denying that he had any joint account with his grand-father. His claim that his name was added in the account only for helping his old maternal grand-father for operating the account is belied by the fact that the ration card produced showed that Shri Om Parkash was staying with his two sons who could have helped him for operating the account. Shri Om Parkash had his own PAN number, yet PAN number of the appellant was mentioned in the bank account. The explanation furnished by the appellant that Shri Om Parkash was partner in M/s Om Parkash Sunder Lal B.K.O was of no help, as no income tax returns of the B.K.O were placed on record. There was no evidence to show that the said capital was ever received by Shri Om Parkash. Reliance was placed on a self serving capital account prepared but the appellant failed to establish that Shri Om Parkash had any other source of income, except the rental income of ₹ 3,630/- per month. No question of law. Rejecting additional evidence having substantive effect - Held that:- No such application was moved before the Tribunal for permitting production of additional evidence. Even otherwise, the capital account of Shri Om Parkash was a self serving document prepared without any basis. The said capital account showed opening balance of ₹ 8,50,528/-, for which there was no source or basis. The appellant failed to give any reason as to why these documents could not be produced earlier. - Decided against assessee
|