TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to produce any material to controvert the well-reasoned findings recorded by the authorities below. Thus, no substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee - ITA No.90 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 23-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. J.K.Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 15.9.2015, Annexure A.7 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench Delhi (in short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.5046/DEL/2011 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee was employed as Supervisor in the Irrigation Department, Haryana. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 4.3.2005 at the residential premises of the assessee. During the said operation, passbook of Shri Sube Singh, Account No.16860 was found. Statement of the assessee was recorded during the search. After examining the evidence on 2 of record and the statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added ₹ 10,15,200/- for the assessment year 2000-01 and ₹ 10,40,265/- for the assessment year 2002-03 in respect of deposits in Sube Singh's account as well as ₹ 2,97,000/- for the assessment year 2003-04 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that since there were no entries relating to the assessment year 2002-03, so no presumption or addition could be foisted on the assessee during this year. Further, the department proceeded against the pass book holder Sube Singh but no action was taken against him and the additions made in the hands of the assessee were legally not permissible. It was urged that the action of the department in making additions in the case of the assessee lacked bonafides of the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer had examined the pass book of Savings Bank Account No.16860 in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer with regard to the statement of the Bank Manager that most of the payments had been made/taken by the assessee and his sons. It was further not disputed by the assessee that the said account was closed on 5.3.2005 i.e. immediately after the search on 4.3.2005. During assessment proceedings, it was also found that introduction to the account of Sube Singh had been made by Smt.Prem Kumari, wife of the assessee. The withdrawals and the deposits had been made by the assessee and his sons from time to time. Thus, it was clearly established that the account of Sube Singh was being operated by the assessee and affirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which shows that the assessee was operating the bank account of Shri Sube Singh and the amounts were received by the assessee and his sons on regular basis for dealing in purchase and sale of properties. The assessee has also failed to give any evidence as to which properties he purchased and which properties were sold and also about repayment of loan to Shri Sube Singh. The assessee has not disputed the bank pass book of Shri Sube Singh which was found at his residence during search and seizure operation, neither has he challenged/controverted the AO's finding to the statement of the Bank Manager given in writing that most of the payments have been made/taken by Shri Kapoor Singh and his sons. The assessee has also not disputed the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03. 7. The concurrent findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the savings account No.16860 in the name of Shri Sube Singh was infact benami account of the assessee and the additions made on the basis of peak amounts therein for the relevant assessment years were totally justified. The contention of the assessee in the facts and circumstances as noticed hereinabove cannot be accepted as the view taken by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to produce any material to controvert the well-reasoned findings recorded by the authorities below. Thus, no substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
