TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected by the ITAT. Admittedly, Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had also not disclosed any cash-in-hand other than under her proprietorship concerns. The Assessee's contention that Late Smt Saroj Gupta was not required to disclose her cashin- hand is difficult to accept. It is relevant to note that a proprietorship concern does not have a separate legal identity other than its sole proprietor and an assessee carrying on business is required to maintain books of accounts necessary for his/her assessment. Be that as it may, the ITAT noted that there was no evidence of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta owning and possessing any cash-in-hand and the self serving documents could not be relied upon. It is relevant to note that out of ₹ 15.06 lacs stated to have been found in the almirah of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta, a sum of ₹ 5 lacs was in currency notes in the denomination of ₹ 1,000/- and ₹ 8,51,500/- was in the denomination of ₹ 500/-. Clearly, such currency could not have been acquired by Late Smt. Saroj Gupta as her Stridhan during the time of her marriage as currency in such denomination was not available at that time. We concur with the view of the ITAT that the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 which indicated that Late Smt. Saroj Gupta owned and possessed cash - which was described as Cash of my Istridhan - amongst her other movable properties and the same was bequeathed to the Assessee. The Assessee asserted that after the demise of his mother, her almirah was opened on 12th February, 2007 in which keys to a locker in the almirah and a small locker inside the main locker was found. On opening the lockers, the Will of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta was found and an inventory of the assets was made. The assets in the locker included cash amounting to ₹ 15,06,800 and jewellery. In terms of the Will, the jewellery was handed over to the Assessee s wife and the cash of ₹ 15,06,800/- was handed over to the Assessee. 5. The AO called upon the Assessee to file evidence of Income tax Returns, Balance sheets and Statement of affairs of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta as on 31st March, 2005, 31st March, 2006 and 14th August, 2006. The AO noted that the Assessee did not file the Statement of affairs as on 31st March, 2005 and 31st March, 2006. However, copies of the balance sheet of the proprietorship concerns of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta, namely, M/s Satyam Investments and M/s Maha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceased. The ITAT also found the Assessee s explanation as to why Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had not filed her wealth tax return to be not acceptable. In the circumstances, the ITAT concluded that there was no cash available as Stridhan with Late Smt. Saroj Gupta on her demise. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to Section 68 of the Act as it existed during the relevant AY, which reads as under:- 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. 9. A plain reading of the aforesaid Section indicates that where the Assessee offers no explanation as to the nature and the source of any sum found credited in its books or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, the sum so credited may be charged to tax as an income of the Assessee. In the present case, the ITAT has not found the Assessee s explanation as to the sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient cash-in-hand. Admittedly, Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had also not disclosed any cash-in-hand other than under her proprietorship concerns. The Assessee's contention that Late Smt Saroj Gupta was not required to disclose her cashin- hand is difficult to accept. It is relevant to note that a proprietorship concern does not have a separate legal identity other than its sole proprietor and an assessee carrying on business is required to maintain books of accounts necessary for his/her assessment. Be that as it may, the ITAT noted that there was no evidence of Late Smt. Saroj Gupta owning and possessing any cash-in-hand and the self serving documents could not be relied upon. 13. Fourthly, the return of income also indicated that Late Smt. Saroj Gupta had earned interest from bank on saving bank account, tax saving bonds, Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and National Saving Certificates and obviously had invested her liquid fund with banks and other interest bearing instruments. There was no possible explanation why Late Smt. Saroj Gupta would keep a sum of ₹ 15.06 lacs in her almirah. The ITAT had rightly taken the same into account while considering the explanation canvasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
