TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.12.2009 at a total income of ₹ 1,50,000/- as against Nil income declared by the assessee. This addition was made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The reasoning given by the AO is that confirmation letter of Shri Anwar Kapadia is only on plate paper without quoting PAN, genuineness of the transaction and without any supporting documents/evidences. Further, the AO has mentioned that on verification of computerized bank statement, it is seen that on 10.06.2002 there is a first entry of cash deposit of ₹ 1,50,000/- and thereafter, the assessee has issued cheque of ₹ 3,50,000/- which is shown as withdrawn from the bank. The assessee has simply filed a letter from M/s. Anvarbhai Adambhai Kapadia stating that as we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced to them from the same bank account and subsequently the amount was received back and credited to the 00 Account. Even the confirmations were submitted to the AO. However, through inadvertence the PAN of Anwar Kapadia was not mentioned in the confirmation letter and the same was mentioned in the reply to show cause notice. The AO argued that the confirmation of Anwar Kapadia was on a plain paper without any supporting evidences. The AO also asked for the copy of bank account of Anwar Kapadia, in which he deposited the money received and had withdrawn the amount paid back to the appellant. i. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the appellant had first advanced the money to the above mentioned parties and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the sequence of entries is not conclusive in order to bring the same to tax u/s 68 of the IT Act. iii. Also, the facts were same in case of both the parties. However, the AO accepted the explanation in case of Samir Motors and rejected the same in case of Anwar Kapadia. In this regard it has been held by the Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. C.P. Adam (1976) 105 ITR 465 (Ker) that with regards to cash credits the same reasoning must be adopted for identical explanations. 2. Without prejudice to above, it is respectfully submitted that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts for the relevant period. Since the appellant is not maintaining the books of accounts the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over to the appellant. If it was withdrawn from his bank account, then the evidence in the nature of bank statement of Shri Anvarbhai Kapadia was to be submitted. The confirmation of Shri Anvarbhai Kapadia is faulty as from it, the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of Shri Anvarbhai Kapadia could not be proved. The story cooked up by the appellant is far from acceptance. The cash was deposited on 10.06.2002 before the clearance of cheque therefore, the withdrawal by Shri Anvarbhai Kapadia from the loan amount of ₹ 3,50,000/- given by cheque cannot be prior to the time of cash deposit in bank by the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the appellant had failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, mere mentioning of sec 68 does not affect the addition. Since the appellant could not able to discharge the onus to prove the credit of ₹ 1,50,000/- in his bank account, the mere mentioning of sec. 68 does not affect the addition. However, to set at rest the controversy, the addition of unexplained deposit in the bank account of the appellant is treated as unexplained investment and the addition is confirmed u/s 69 of the Act. The only ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, on behalf of the assessee, Shri A.L.Thakkar appeared and reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving bank account. The AO asked the assessee to produce the bank account of Shri Anwar Kapadia. It was neither produced before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the Tribunal, he has not produced the same. Keeping in view of these facts, the ld. D.R. further pointed out that the addition was rightly made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 7. Having heard both the sides, I have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is pertinent to note that despite the explanation sought from the AO, the assessee has not furnished the source of deposit with plausible evidence, except that of the confirmation letter on a plain paper. The assessee failed to prove w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
