9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up on 22.11.2006. Allegedly, incriminating documents were found and seized from his residence at E-13/14, IInd Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. During the search, cash of Rs. 48,400/- and jewellery of Rs. 4,02,679/- were found. Further, assessee's locker No. 39 with Punjab National Bank, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon jointly held in the name of Shri R.K. Gupta and Nutan Gupta was also opened and searched on 15.01.2007 wherein cash amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/-, NSCs/KVPs worth Rs. 1,10,000/- and LIC policy payment receipts amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/- were found and seized. It is seen from the records that all other items recovered from the locker barring cash of Rs. 8,50,000/- have already been offered to taxation during assessment year 2001-02 to assessment year 2007-08 i.e. in the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling under the provisions of section 153A(a) of the Act. 2.1 Regarding cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs, it has been the assessee's contention that the same was received from a prospective buyer M/s Pataliputra Credit and Securities Ltd. (in short PCSL) against proposed construction and sale of flat on plot no. 416, Sector 46, Faridabad and formed a part of the tentative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to sell or did not obtain any authentic cash receipt while advancing the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the assessee. Had there been any such agreement, the relevant document would have been found during the search operation." 2.3 In second round of appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) also, the assessee failed and the addition was confirmed again. 3. Now, the assessee has again approached the Tribunal in this appeal and is contesting the impugned addition of Rs. 8.50 lakhs. 3.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rejected the explanation of the appellant regarding source of Rs. 8.50 lacs found in cash from his bank locker by not believing, on mere conjectures and surmises, that it was out of Rs. 11 lacs received as an advance from M/s Patliputra Credit & Securities Ltd. by raising doubts on the statement of its director, Mr. Anil Sanghi, recorded by him and ignoring the documents furnished by Mr. Sanghi in support thereto before the AO. It was submitted that consequent to the search and seizure proceedings undertaken on M/s Patliputra Credit & Securities Ltd. in November, 1996, it has been regularly assessed to income-tax in Central Circle-23, New Delhi till date and the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, the explanation of Mr. Anil Sanghi could not be doubted. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee's AO had referred to a figure of Rs. 8,91,38,789/- in the balance sheet of M/s Patliputra Credit & Securities Ltd. and stated that the same represented the closing balance of 'Cash and Bank' as on 31/03/06, thus, challenging the veracity of the statement given by Mr. Anil Sanghi that the company did not have any bank account as on that date. Whereas it can be verified from the said balance sheet that this figure of Rs. 8,91,38,789/- was the amount of "Income Tax Deposit under Appeal" and not 'cash and bank balance' as alleged by the AO and therefore no credence could be placed on the charges made by the AO on the basis of the said wrong figure picked up by him for rejecting the explanations of Mr. Anil Sanghi. 4. The Ld. DR referred at length to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and averred that M/s PCSL was a listed company and therefore it cannot be believed that the company did not have a bank account. He also referred to the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that the company did not have sufficient cash to close the deal. Placing heavy reliance on the orders of the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a recent judgement in the case of CIT vs Jawaharlal Oswal and Others (I.T.A. No. 49 of 1999, Judgment delivered on 29.01.2016) dismissed the Department's appeal by holding that suspicion and doubt may be the starting point of an investigation but cannot, at the final stage of assessment, take the place of relevant facts, particularly when deeming provision is sought to be invoked. The Hon'ble Court has observed , "...The principle that governs a deeming provision is that the initial onus lies upon the revenue to raise a prima facie doubt on the basis of credible material. The onus, thereafter, shifts to the assessee to prove that the gift is genuine and if the assessee is unable to proffer a credible explanation, the Assessing Officer may legitimately raise an inference against the assessee. If, however, the assessee furnishes all relevant facts within his knowledge and offers a credible explanation, the onus reverts to the revenue to prove that these facts are not correct. The revenue cannot draw an inference based upon suspicion or doubt or perceptions of culpability or on the quantum of the amount, involved particularly when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
