Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Surjit Singh Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amritsar

2015 (8) TMI 280 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Income from undisclosed sources - addition on account of the cash deposits of ₹ 7,23,000/- in the savings account of the assessee - non-confirmation of the sales from the commission agent, the liability was fastened upon the assessee by issuing notice under Section 148 - Held that:- The onus of proof was wrongly put upon the assessee mainly because of cash deposits of ₹ 7,23,000/-, which have been now added to his income as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee was never give .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee and accepting the statement of the commission agent as gospel truth. Merely because the appellant was a retired employee and filed his return showing agricultural income admittedly being a owner of agricultural land, the assessing officer was not justified in making the additions on the assumption that the assessee had tried to include his past savings and unaccounted money in the agricultural income. The said finding was totally conjectural and without any basis which further was w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gan, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Kaul, Adv. JUDGMENT G. S. Sandhawalia,J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar whereby, the appeal of the assessee was only partly allowed and the disallowance of ₹ 7,23,000/- was upheld in place of the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 9,02,215/-. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. The question of law which arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,23,000/- in the savings account of the assessee, the source of the said cash deposit was sought to be explained by the revenue. The explanation of the assessee was that he was owner of 20 acres and 7 kanals of agricultural land in his own name and out of which, there was an orchard of 8 acres, which was being cultivated. The sale proceeds of fruit of ₹ 9,02,215/- had been deposited and one M/s. Gurdaspurian Di Hatti Food, an Commission Agent of Batala had made the payments. The concerned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent, the liability was fastened upon the assessee by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by rejecting the plea of the assessee that the department should have proceeded against the commission agent. The challenge to the reopening of the case and that the fact that even subsequently the assessee was showing agricultural income from the land which he owned was accordingly rejected on account of the fact that the amount had been deposited in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dence regarding the transactions noted on the letter pad of the commission agent and whether the same were true and correct since the said firm had denied having purchased any fruit from the appellant. The addition was thus, upheld by holding that the source of cash deposits had not been discharged by producing any positive evidence. In the appeal before the Tribunal, challenge was raised to the notice dated 10.02.2011 under Section 148 of the Act and the addition made on this basis. It was plea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lusive owner of the agricultural land and rejected the submission that for subsequent 3 years in the returns filed, agricultural income had been shown and which had been accepted ranging from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 12,50,000/- by holding that each year is an independent year. The facts have been noticed in detail above. It is a matter of record that initially, the returns were accepted and an inquiry was initiated against the commission agent for making cash payments. The original receipt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version