TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and the onus was upon the assessee to prove the veracity of statement by her. The report which was submitted by the Inspector of Income Tax Department was vis-à-vis fact of collection of samples near Tawade Hotel, where the employee said that it was a collection centre of M/s. Vedant Path lab. In view of the assessee having not discharged his onus, we find no merit in the claim of assessee and addition of ₹ 4,15,411/- is upheld.- Decided against assessee Undisclosed investment - Held that:- The assessee first claimed that it had received ₹ 13 lakhs from his father, which was cash available with him. However, no evidence of the source of cash was produced nor the father was produced for verification. Since the claim was made by the assessee, the onus was upon the assessee to produce his father vis-à-vis investment in the land totaling ₹ 5,93,610/- also. The assessee claimed that it was purchased by his father and was part of HUF. However, the assessee failed to produce and fi le the source of said investment and merely stating that it belongs to the HUF does not absolve the assessee of his duty, where the asset stands in his name. In the absence of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions made before him. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in consonance with the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Act the addition sustained be quashed. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,15,411/- without considering properly the submissions made before him. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in consonance with the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Act the addition sustained be quashed. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,93,610/- without considering properly the submissions made before him. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in consonance with the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Act the addition sustained be quashed. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 50,000/- without considering properly the submissions made before him. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in consonance with the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Act the addition sustained be quashed. 5) On the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- SBI, Treasury Branch A/c No .95176 Rs.4,00,000/- Total Rs.36,30,740/- 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that the bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank bearing account No.5810 and bearing account No.577 were not shown in the Balance Sheet. The assessee was asked to furnish the copies of all bank accounts together with source of deposits and details of withdrawals on and above ₹ 20,000/-. In response, the assessee stated that he did not maintain any bank accounts other than one stated in the Balance Sheet. The Assessing Officer gave another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in all the banks. The assessee explained that there was total deposit of ₹ 25,14,396/- in three bank accounts with State Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra and HDFC, which was deposited out of advance, bank interest, business receipts, machinery account, FD encahsed, Bank deposits and salary. The Assessing Officer further issued letter dated 14.12.2013 under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein he asked the assessee to furnish evidence of sale of machine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) further observed that it was assessee s responsibility to substantiate any claim made by him. Where he had made claim that sum of ₹ 13 lakhs was received from his father, then onus was upon him to produce his father for examination as his witness. Only after he discharges his onus, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer. Where the Assessing Officer had allowed several opportunities to the assessee, the CIT(A) held that proper natural justice was done and the addition was upheld. 8. As pointed out by us in the paras hereinabove, the assessee has failed to appear before us though several opportunities have been given. In the absence of any explanation filed by the assessee and in the absence of assessee having produced the books of account to substantiate his claim, we find no merit in the stand of assessee in this regard. The onus was upon the assessee to produce his witnesses and establish the sources of amount in two savings bank accounts with HDFC Bank and other documents, which the assessee has failed to do so. In the absence of same, we find no merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fe of assessee appeared during the course of assessment proceedings and confirmed that she was running the said business, but when she was asked to substantiate her claim, she failed to do so. The said witness is that of assessee and the onus was upon the assessee to prove the veracity of statement by her. The report which was submitted by the Inspector of Income Tax Department was vis- -vis fact of collection of samples near Tawade Hotel, where the employee said that it was a collection centre of M/s. Vedant Path lab. In view of the assessee having not discharged his onus, we find no merit in the claim of assessee and addition of ₹ 4,15,411/- is upheld. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is thus, dismissed. 12. Now, coming to the next addition of ₹ 5,93,610/- under section 69 of the Act. The assessee had purchased the land in district Belgum for total consideration of ₹ 5,55,000/- and including the other expenses, the total investment was ₹ 5,93,610/-. The said land was not reflected in the Balance Sheet. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The assessee stated that the land was purchased by his father, but in his name. The said land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses, against which it had neither produced books of account nor any bills or vouchers to establish that the claim was for business purpose. Accordingly, a n adhoc disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- was made out of total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee failed to furnish any information before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) or even before us vis- -vis expenditure claimed under various heads and in the absence of same, we find no merit in the ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee and the same is dismissed. 17. The grievance of assessee vide ground of appeal No.5 is against the action of CIT(A) in not calling for remand report to consider the factual position properly. There is no merit in the said ground of appeal raised by the assessee in the absence of assessee having established his case of additional evidence, if any, and in the absence of same, we dismiss the ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee. 18. The issue in ground of appeal No.6 is against charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act is consequential and hence, the same is dismissed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
