Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1366 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained deposits in cash - assessee has no business or source of income - assessee has claimed gift from father-in-law and cash receipt from her husband - assessee has also claimed receipt from hand loan from four persons - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has no business or source of income, it is not known how the entire sale of stock and machineries were allowed to be withdrawn by one partner in the partnership firm. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence for sale of stock or sale of machineries, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the entries in the books of account are afterthought and there was huge cash deposit on a single day, therefore, there was no merit in the claim of the assessee that a sum of ₹ 61,00,000/- was withdrawn from the partnership firm’s account. Gift said to be received by the assessee from her father-in-law genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors or the donors were not established. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Cash receipt from the assessee’s husband - the source claimed by Shri Vasudevan such as receipt of cash advance earlier for machinery purchase from Shri S.K. Pandian, Shri R. Nagaraj and Shri D. Palanisamy were not established. In the case of Shri Vasudevan’s assessment, the source was not accepted by the Assessing Officer that attained finality. Since the source for creditors was found to be not available for making payment of ₹ 23,00,000/- to the assessee, the assessment in the case of assessee has to be confirmed. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Land lease - assessee claims that due to pollution control problem, the partnership firm M/s Balu Process decided to close down the operation and the land and building were leased out and an advance of ₹ 20,00,000/- was received - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the land and building were of dying unit. The assessee claims that it was leased to one Shri Muruganantham who appears to be a driver by profession. Shri Muruganantham earns only ₹ 7500/- per month. It is not known the object of leasing out of dying unit to a driver. In respect of three lessees, namely, Shri Sundaram, Shri Shyam Jayakumar and Smt. Rajeswari, no material evidence appears to be brought on record by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the lessees for making payment to the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. - Assessee's appeal rejected.
|