TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under s. 132(5) of the IT Act that money was raised from various sources and that he had taken it to Bombay for purchase of a house there. Since the purchase did not materialise, he brought back the money. The assessee has filed a statement showing the sources of funds of Rs. 4 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner(A) accepted the assessee's statement regarding the sources of Rs. 4 lakhs only in part. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal. 3. The items in dispute are as follows: . Rs. (a) Loan from Shukoor,, pepper merchant 5,000 (b) Loan from Rajan George 32,000 (c) Loan from Ommen George,, brother-in-law of the assessee 37,000 (d) Loan fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim. In appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is aggrieved. 5. We have heard rival submissions. The fact that Shri Shukoor is a timber merchant is not denied. He has also confirmed the advance of Rs. 15,000 to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not examined Shri Shukoor. Without examining the creditor, it cannot be said that the source explained is not correct. In this case, the creditor has been identified. He has also confirmed having advanced the amount by means of a letter. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to disbelieve the assessee's explanation in this regard. We, therefore, hold that the source of Rs. 15,000 has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. We delete this addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been examined. The fact that the creditor was employed in Gulf and he had the means to advance the loan amount is not in dispute. The only thing is that the identity of the persons from whom money was borrowed and the details in respect of the sale of jewellery have not been furnished. In this case the assessee has given the identity of the creditor who in turn has furnished the confirmation letter. Hence, the burden on the assessee regarding the loan stands discharged. The Assessing Officer has not examined the creditor. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the credit standing in the name of Rajan Oommen is not genuine. Hence, we delete the addition of Rs. 28,500. Loan from Ommen George, brother of assessee: 8. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee is aggrieved. 9. We have heard rival submissions. We agree with the reasons given by the authorities below for making the addition of Rs. 37,000 as income from undisclosed sources. We confirm the said addition. Loan from Rajan George, brother of the assessee: 10. The assessee claimed that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 32,000 from his brother, Shri Rajan George, in December, 1986. According to the assessee, this sum was withdrawn by Rajan George from his NRE Account No. 22/83 with Federal Bank, Munnar. The Assessing Officer noticed that there was time lag of 10 months between the withdrawal of the aforesaid sum from the bank and the assessee's trip to Bombay in October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land owned by his mother. The assessee had also begun construction of a hotel at Munnar sometime during 1986-87. On 23rd Oct., 1987, certain timber was seized by the Forest Department from the assessee's Raju Vilas Estate. Part of the seized timber was released to the assessee on 28th Dec., 1987, and the remaining timber was confiscated by the Forest Department. As per the records of the Forest Range Office, the total value of the timber seized was Rs. 6,200 out of which timber of a value of Rs. 3,000 was released to the assessee on 28th Dec., 1987. As per the details noted in the records of Forest Range Office, value of such timber at the prescribed government rate was Rs. 2,522. On an inspection of the assessee's lands, the Inspector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances, it might be possible for the assessee to get timber without passes or auctions. However, as there is no pucca evidence, we allow a further sum of Rs. 20,000 only. This point is found accordingly. 15. The last item in dispute relates to pepper sales. The assessee claimed that out of the seized cash of Rs. 4 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 90,038 represented the sale proceeds of pepper cultivated by the assessee in his lands. The assessee claimed that he had realised a sum of Rs. 45,958 on 27th Dec., 1986, by selling 835 kgs. of pepper and a further sum of Rs. 44,080 on 26th Sept., 1987, through sale of 760 kgs. of pepper. According to the assessee, the pepper crop, though harvested in February every year, is not sold by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
