Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 784 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit - Addition u/s 68 - onus to prove - genuineness of sale proceeds of agricultural produce of the land - HELD THAT:- Sources of income of the assessee are agriculture and also rental income from HUF properties situated at Nalgonda and Suryapet. Though he mentioned about a petrol bunk, since according to the assessee, the petrol bunk business commenced only in 2012, the income from the petrol bunk business cannot be said to be a source of income for the assessee to deposit in the Bank Accounts for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. He also stated that he was doing real estate business at Hyderabad and was entering into agreements of sale and by keeping certain margin, he was selling the same to others. Though he stated that he was getting an average income of ₹ 4,00,000/- p.a. from the real estate business since 2010, and he claims to have done small ventures at Uppal Bus Depot and promised to furnish details, there is nothing to show that he did furnish any details. Therefore, the cash deposits, which are admitted by him to be from real estate business or rental income, have also to be taken into account. It was the duty of the assessee to disclose these aspects before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad or the Tribunal because these are within his exclusive knowledge. Having admitted that he was also doing real estate business and was also having rental income, and by not furnishing any details of the same, he cannot blame the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal for drawing conclusion that his source of money for making deposits other than agricultural income, is the real estate business. No doubt in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act, this Court has power to interfere with the findings of fact which are vitiated by use of inadmissible material and if a decision is based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or irrelevant material or if there is perversity, but the instant case does not fall in any of these categories. The several opportunities given to the assessee to persuade him to reveal the sources of income have already been mentioned in the order passed by the AO. The assessee therefore cannot have any complaint against the Department when he was not furnishing all the details as sought by the Department though he agreed to do so in the statement given by him to the Department on 16-10-2015. We are of the opinion that in the instant case, no error of law has been committed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad or the Tribunal in treating a portion of the unexplained deposits as income of the Assessee. - Decided against assessee.
|