TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani at Rs. 17,000, Shri Vinay Oberai at Rs. 18,000, Shri Omprakash Hariramani at Rs. 18,500, Shri Payal Omprakash at Rs. 11,500 which was returned by Cheque to them, when all are assessed to tax and filed their confirmation. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the said additions cannot fall under the definition of undisclosed income under section 158B( b ) of the Income-tax Act. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 53,434 represents the income which the assessee has not disclosed or would not have disclosed. 5. That the additions by the learned CIT(A) are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive." 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne has stated that he was assessed to income-tax. The Assessing Officer rejected the evidence furnished by the assessee by saying as under : "This submission is nothing but a fabricated story. The assessee and her husband is of very sound financial position which is evidenced from the cash found at the residence. The cash of Rs. 24,624 was her cash in hand is accepted being reasonable. Thus, the hand loan of Rs. 53,434 is assessed as undisclosed income of the assessment year 1999-2000. The penalty under section 158 BFA(2) is invoked for this undisclosed cash." 3.1 On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as per his observation in para 4 of the penalty order which reads as under : "In proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he creditors being regular income-tax payees, the onus puts on the assessee stood discharged and if the evidence furnished by the assessee was to be rejected, the revenue should have brought cogent material on record. But unfortunately, there is nothing. The assessee s counsel relied on the following decisions after pointing out the specific observations therein : "(1) CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) - relied on the following observations : When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the departments to establish the revenue s case and in order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditwo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and inquiries made following search. Such income could not be included as undisclosed income of block period. (7) Devamani Atha v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 837 (Ori.). (8) CIT v. Luxmi Trading Co. [1979] 117 ITR 439 (Cal.). (9) Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 244 (Pat.)." 4.1 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. After having considered the rival submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there being nothing on record as to what was the plea of the assessee, with regard to the source of cash found at the time of search made at the time of search, explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
