Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Naresh Kumar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

2016 (10) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Unexplained source of huge Cash Deposit in Bank Account - assessee declared his income u/s 44AF - Whether Presumptive charge of income u/s 44AF distinguishable from arriving at chargeable income u/s 29 - Tribunal decided the issues raised before it against the assessee - Held that:- AS held by ITAT that when the assessing officer had sought from the assessee the source of the cash deposits to the tune of ₹ 18,31,500/- made by him in his bank account, virtually no documentary proof regardin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

als of ₹ 1,50,000/- and ₹ 2,00,000/-. The assessee was also found to have failed to prove any purchases made by him from his withdrawals especially when these withdrawals were made only in February, 2008 i.e. at the fag end of the financial year. The Tribunal further noted that in his return, the assessee had shown sales of ₹ 18,82,800/- with net profit of ₹ 1,08,000/- and with this low profit margin, without making purchases no sale could have possibly been effected by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

les were directly related to the cash deposits made by him in his bank account, was also found missing by the Tribunal. - In view of the afore-referred facts, the Tribunal held that the assessee's case was distinguishable from Surinder Pal Anand's case ( 2010 (6) TMI 404 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was allowed and the addition made by the assessing officer was restored. - ITA-382-2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - MR. S.J. VAZIFDAR AND MR. DEEPAK S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal raises the following substantial questions of law: - 1. Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the 'presumptive charge' of income u/s 44AF is distinguishable from arriving at 'chargeable income' u/s 29 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Surinder Pal Anand (2010) 48 DTR 135 (P&H) and hence violative of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icer having reasons to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, after recording reasons, issued notice to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act as to why the income of the assessee may not be re-assessed. In response to such notice, the assessee filed his return, reiterating the income declared by him in his original return. Statutory notice under Sections 142(1)/143(2) of the Act, dated 31.10.2013, alongwith a questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee in r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee's savings account maintained by him with the Central Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh. The details of the same pertaining to the relevant assessment year as borne out from the record are as under: - ____________________________________________________________ Value Date Post Date Details Chq Debit No. Credit Balance BROUGHT FORWARD 0.00 16.06.07 16.06.07 DMINTA 000 DJ 30.06.07 30.06.07 BY INTT 1,817.00 1,05,618.00 Cr 13.08.07 13.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 1,55,118.00 Cr 14.08.07 14.08.07 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7 28.09.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 6,99,618.00 Cr 01.10.07 01.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 7,49,118.00 Cr 04.10.07 04.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 7,98,618.00 Cr 05.10.07 05.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 8,48,118.00 Cr 08.10.07 08.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 8,97,618.00 Cr 09.10.07 09.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 9,47,118.00 Cr 10.10.07 10.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 9,96,618.00 Cr 11.10.07 11.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 10,46,118.00 Cr 30.10.07 30.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 10,95,618.00 Cr 31.10.07 31.10.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 11,45,118, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

49,500.00 16,40,118.00 Cr 01.12.07 01.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 16,89,618.00 Cr 03.12.07 03.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 17,39,118.00 Cr 04.12.07 04.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 17,88,618.00 Cr CARRIED FORWARD 17,88,618.00 Cr BROUGHT FORWARD 17,88,618.00 Cr 06.12.07 06.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 18,38,118.00 Cr 07.12.07 07.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 18,87,618.00 Cr 08.12.07 08.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 19,37,118.00 Cr 31.12.07 31.12.07 BY INTT 15,275.00 19,52,393.00 Cr 02.02.08 02.02.08 TO SELF 1,50,000.00 18,02,39 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the source of the afore-detailed cash deposits had not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Complete sale/purchase bills had not been produced. Photocopies of few bills which had been produced were those which had been issued during the current year only. The account details further did not show any withdrawals made by the assessee till February, 2008. The assessee failed to tell the names of the parties from whom he purchased the material/furniture for sale. Accordingly, invokin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessing officer had not recorded any reasons but the Commissioner found the same to be duly recorded. The Commissioner further held that the assessee declared his income under Section 44AF of the Act and, thus, was not required to maintain books of accounts and explain each entry. After relying upon a judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Surinder Pal Anand (2010) 48 DTR 135 (P&H), the Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal and ordered deletion of the amount of ₹ 18,31,500/- as ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y no documentary proof regarding purchases/sale of furniture was submitted by him. Photocopies of only a few of the bills which were produced pertained to the current year only. The names of the parties from whom the assessee had purchased the material were not disclosed. The Tribunal noted that throughout the year, on different dates the assessee had made deposits of identical amounts of ₹ 49,500/- and it was only at the fag end of the financial year i.e. on 02.02.2008 and 13.02.2008 that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version