TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question, she deposed that “I keep few amounts of saving at home”. If these two questions are compared with question no.9, where the AO had asked place of keeping agriculture income, she deposed that such income was kept at home. Similarly, we have perused the statement of other creditors. All that statements did not inspire credence to us. The assessee has taken alleged unsecured loan in systematic manner. In some of the cases cash was deposited one or two days before the money was given to the assessee, and the assessee is man of means. How it can be expected that small farmers not having any regular source of income would give loan in this fashion. As far as discrepancy pointed by the assessee with regard to Mr.Mahesh Shrivastva, if that discrepancy is taken note of, he was not credit-worthy of giving any loan to the assessee. The ld.Revenue authorities have appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective while making addition. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1148/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parmar Ramsingh Gabesingh ₹ 17,500/- 15. Parmar Ratilal Fatehsingh ₹ 17,500/- 16. Parmar Vajesingh Shnaker Rs.17,500/- 17. Patel Ambalal Maganbhai ₹ 16,000/- 18. Patel Harishbhai Dahyabhai ₹ 17, 500/- 19. Patel Harishbhai Ramdas ₹ 18,500/- 20. Patel Hasmukh Mohanbhai ₹ 18,900/- 21. Patel Jayantibhai Chhaganbhai ₹ 10,375/- 22. Patel Maheshbhai Desaibhai ₹ 17,500/- 23. Patel Natwarbhai B Rs.18,500/- 24. Patel Parshotambhai M ₹ 16,000/- 25. Patel Shanabhai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000/- to ₹ 60,0007-, on the other hand, in a period of 7 days the receipts of ₹ 3.43 lakh is shown by way of sale bills for crops which were not indicated to be cultivated in the original statement. From these conflicting facts the credit worthiness of the depositor is not proved and all the subsequent documents appear to be' merely self serving in nature. 4.3.1. In regard to deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs from Mahesh Musale, it is seen that the same was claimed to be received by the lender from the brother Mr. Rajesh Musale as gift in May, 2003 whereas the bank statement of partnership concern M/s. Shree Corporation of Mr. Rajesh Musale reveal that he had withdrawn ₹ 3 lakhs from the bank account only on 31/03/2004 in other words, the withdrawals could not be gifted in May 2003. 4.3.2. In respect of the remaining 31 depositors, a perusal of affidavits filed and the statements recorded and the facts of the case suggest that most of the depositors claim to have given the loan on 31/05/2003 or in May 2003. For most of the lenders this was the solitary loan transaction and none of these agriculturists had any evidence of sale of agriculture produce, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w he could make gift in May, 2003 ? Taking us though the page no.34 of the paper book, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that 31.3.2004 is a credit entry in Nutan Sahakari Bank Ltd. It was not a withdrawal by the creditor. He has withdrawn it on earlier occasions. He further contended that all the creditors have given their affidavits. They have confirmed the transaction during the course of their statement, and therefore, the AO ought to have not doubted the explanation of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities below. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that 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 AO satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of that previous year. There is no dispute that sums were found credited in the accounts of the assessee. In order to discharge onus for giving an explanation exhibiting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
