TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem. The assessee was not able to substantiate his version as he had failed to provide any material to show that amount was received by Pritam Singh from M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The Assessing Officer had thus added the aforesaid amount as unexplained income of the assessee. The revisional authority had confirmed the said addition under Section 264 of the Act. The reference to various documents as contended by learned counsel does not establish the genuineness or the capacity of Shri Pritam Singh or availability of funds with M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The self serving affidavits or memorandum of understanding, compromise deed and statement of account of Pritam Singh from Axis Bank does not help the appellant as the assessee had failed to produce the alleged Shri Pritam Singh or furnish his address or PAN and establish the credentials of the company M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The Assessing Officer had thus rightly imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.- This was affirmed by CIT(A) on an appeal by the assessee - Decided against assesee. - ITA No.112 of 2014(O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-8-2014 - MR. JUSTICE A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saving account for the purpose of starting the mutually agreed purchase of land and similarly an additional amount of ₹ 45 lacs was transferred by the West Point Properties Private Limited to Shri Pritam Singh through cheque No.4262 on 22.4.2006 which was also received by him. On 10.8.2006, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on various companies and individuals whereby the appellant was covered under it. The Axis bank account of the appellant was closed on 12.8.2006. Except for these transactions, there was no other transaction in the said account. There being disputes amongst the parties, it was mutually agreed and decided in compromise deed to refund an amount of ₹ 3.65 crores out of which ₹ 1.20 crores was in the hands of the appellant and the said amount was returned by the appellant in cash. Thereafter, jurisdiction of the appellant s case was transferred to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) Central Circle I Chandigarh through order dated 20.3.2007 under section 127 of the Act being effective w.e.f 20.3.2007. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10.10.2007 to the appellant asking the details qua the aforesaid transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee was that he had received some advances from one Shri Pritam Singh for purchase of agricultural land on behalf of the company named M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. It was claimed that as the assessee had failed to arrange agricultural land for West Point Properties Pvt. Limited, therefore, the entire amount of ₹ 1.20 crores was returned back to them. The assessee was not able to substantiate his version as he had failed to provide any material to show that amount was received by Pritam Singh from M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The Assessing Officer had thus added the aforesaid amount as unexplained income of the assessee. The revisional authority had confirmed the said addition under Section 264 of the Act. The reference to various documents as contended by learned counsel does not establish the genuineness or the capacity of Shri Pritam Singh or availability of funds with M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The self serving affidavits or memorandum of understanding, compromise deed and statement of account of Pritam Singh from Axis Bank does not help the appellant as the assessee had failed to produce the alleged Shri Pritam Singh or furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f West Point Properties Pvt. Limited does not contain any reference to the permanent account number of the company or the address of the company or the jurisdictional Assessing officer. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that the assessee has failed miserably in establishing the identity. It is further seen that no evidence had been filed to prove that the amount withdrawn in cash to the tune of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- has been credited in the books of account of West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. There was nothing to prevent the assessee from filing the necessary evidence in this regard, had the claim been genuine. Therefore, assessee could also not establish the creditworthiness of the person from whom he has claimed to have received/paid the money. Further fact that the amount to the tune ofR s. 1,20,00,000/- has been deposited in assessee s bank account on 19.4.2006 and 21.4.2006 and the same has been withdrawn in cash within one day of the deposit is not explained by theory proposed by the assessee. If the theory proposed by the assessee is to be believed, there was nothing to prevent the assessee from returning the said amount by cheque from whom it had been received by ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
