Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 791 - MADRAS HIGH COURTUndisclosed income - fixed deposit in the names of the assessee and his son - Held that:- The agreement was for the sale of a property, which was worth only ₹ 1.5 lakhs whereas the total sale consideration was ₹ 20 lakhs. Secondly, Mr. Kannappan, the alleged purchaser, did not have sufficient source of income or surplus income for purchase of the property. Further, admittedly, the said Kannappan did not affix his signature in the agreement. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has discharged his burden of proving the source, nature and character of the credit is erroneous. The materials available would only make it very clear that the transaction in question was not genuine and the finding of the Assessing Officer that the amount of undisclosed income is sustainable. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the finding of the Assessing Officer that ₹ 13.35 lakhs is undisclosed income is restored. Seizure of cash from raid - accumulation of agricultural income - Held that:- No books of account were maintained by the trust and the trust was also found to be an unregistered one and no sale bills were produced by the assessee to show that the agricultural income from the said lands amounted to ₹ 12 lakhs. The burden was on the assessee to prove that ₹ 12 lakhs got accumulated out of the agricultural income from the trust lands, by producing supportive documents, especially, when the lands were leased out to third parties. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Revenue failed to produce material on record that the sum of ₹ 12 lakhs was out of the accumulation of agricultural income from the trust lands of the assessee. When the brothers and relatives of the assessee have categorically stated that they have not advanced any money to the assessee nor they have the capacity to do so, the Tribunal erroneously, contrary to the facts, stated that the brothers have accepted the advance amounts paid by them and that they have also established their source. The said finding is perverse. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee did not possess any undisclosed income is liable to be set aside. Further, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee produced necessary materials in support of his claim and that it would be sufficient for discharge of his initial burden. But, the said finding is erroneous and contrary to law. The assessee did not produce any document and even the documents produced were not genuine, as rightly found by the Assessing Officer. No corroborative evidence was produced by the assessee to account for the income. Therefore, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored.
|