9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was informed to both the representatives for the assessee and the revenue. Accordingly, the appeals were heard partly on 01-04-2014 and for continuation of the hearing, the appeals were adjourned to 04-08- 2014. On 04-08-2014 we heard both sides. 3. The issue arises for consideration is addition made by the assessing officer on the basis of the search conducted at the premises of the assessees on 13-03-2008. 4. Let us first take the appeal in ITA No.42/Coch/2014 in the case of Smt. Asha Sunil for the assessment year 2006-07. 5. The only issue arises for consideration is addition of Rs. 10,43,815. Shri CBM Warrier, the ld.representative for the assessee submitted that the asessee filed an additional ground with regard to the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of search proceedings / search warrant in the case of the present assessee. According to the ld.representative, the search was conducted in the case of Shri O.G. Sunil, the husband of the assessee and no search was conducted in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment proceedings at the best may be framed u/s 153C on the basis of the material found during the course of searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the source from where the deposits were made. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee could not explain the source and means for deposit of Rs. 3,33,815. In the absence of any material and explanation from the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly treated the deposit in the bank as unexplained investment. Therefore, the order of the lower authority on this issue is confirmed. 10. The next addition is with regard to investment in property. Shri CBM Warrier, the ld.representtive for the assessee submitted that the assessee has purchased a property to the extent of Rs. 6,30,000. The stamp duty and other expenses comes to Rs. 7,10,000. The assessee has no explanation to offer. We heard Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR also. 11. The fact that the assessee purchased property by investing an amount of Rs. 7,10,000 is not disputed. Therefore, it is for the assessee to explain from where the assessee got the funds for making investment and why the same should not be treated as income of the assessee. The assessee has no explanation to offer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of Smt. Asha Sunil, the sole ground of appeal is with regard to addition of Rs. 6,67,68,547 on account of unexplained investments. 17. Shri CBM Warrier, the ld.representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee's father Shri George Philip was an aircraft maintenance engineer in Bahrain. The ld.representative submitted that from his salary income he gifted to his daughter Asha Sunil. The ld.representative has produced the copy of the bank statement from which the money was transferred to the assessee. Copy of the account produced by the assessee clearly shows that the money was transferred from Singapore to India by way of telegraphic transfer and within a day or two, the same amount was transferred to the assessee's account. On a query from the bench, when the assessee's father was working in Bahrain as an aircraft maintenance engineer, how the money was transferred from Singapore to India to the assessee's father's account, the ld.representtive for the assessee could not give any satisfactory explanation. However, he submitted that assessee's father might have transferred his salary from Singapore. The money, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahrain and his salary and savings were used for transfer of funds to the assessee's account. On examination of the assessee's father's bank account, it appears, the funds were received by the bank on T.T. transfer. After third or fourth day, the same amount was transferred to the assessee's account. Therefore, this cannot be from savings of the assessee's father. If it is out of savings, there should be recurring credits and it cannot be a one time transfer to the bank account of the assesee's father. In fact, the assessing officer has observed as follows with regard to the nature of transaction on page 7 of the assessment order: " The examination of the account of Shri George Philip with the City Bank (A/c No.5-0170190467) reveals that the amounts transferred to Smt. Asha Sunil were credited in his accounts only a few days prior to the transfer of those funds to her. Those amounts were credited to his accounts on TT transfer / Funds Transfer. The first three transfers to the account of Smt. Asha Sunil are of the same amounts received by him in his account. The further transfer to Smt. Asha Sunil's account on 10.10.2207 (sic) is Rs. 1,13,99,908/- where as the amount credited to Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er's account, the creditworthiness is not proved. Merely because the funds were transferred from banking channel, it will not prove the genuineness of the transaction as held by the Apex Court in the case of P Mohanakala (supra). In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 21. In the result, appeal in ITA No.44/Coch/2014 is dismissed. 22. Now coming to appeal filed by Shri O.G. Sunil, in appeal in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee is challenging the addition of Rs. 36,67,010. 23. According to the ld.representative, Shri CBM Warrier, the assessing officer has taken Rs. 15,04,891 as unexplained bank deposit. According to the ld.representtive, the total deposit was Rs. 19,54,243. The assessing officer has failed to take cheque deposit to the extent of Rs. 4,48,828. The ld.representative very fairly submitted that the assessee could not explain the source for making these deposits. However, it is from real estate business. Therefore, according to the ld.representative, only the net amount should be taken and not the gross amount. According to the ld.representative, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed in the cash flow statement was taken as income of the assessee. 26. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee is not maintaining any books of account. The assessee has received huge receipt from various persons. However, the details of such persons were not disclosed to the department. There may be various reasons for the assessee for not disclosing the details of the persons from whom money was received. The fact remains is that the assessee has deposited cash and cheque to the extent of Rs. 19,54,243, as admitted by the ld.representative for the assessee, in the bank. However, the assessing officer has taken only Rs. 15,04,893. The cheque payment to the extent of Rs. 5,68,316 was not considered by the assessing officer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the details of the persons from whom the money was received, the assessing officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. In fact, the assessing officer omitted to consider Rs. 5,68,316. This Tribunal has no power of enhancement unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 36,67,010. The assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2,91,600. 30. The only issue involved in the remaining appeals in ITA Nos 46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G. Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments of Rs. 36,67,010 an amount of Rs. 2,91,600 has to be deleted as the same represents withdrawal from bank out of the deposits in the bank account and the addition of the withdrawal would amount to double addition. The facts and circumstances are identical for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 also. Admittedly, there are deposits in bank account of the assessee. The assessee could not file any explanation regarding the source of receipt of money except saying that it is from real estate business. In the absence of any details / material this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the entire deposits in bank account shall be treated as income of the assessee. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
