TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s notarised by Registered Notary or it is registered document. As in the document, it was mentioned that the amount of ₹.5,00,000/- towards rental advance shall be payable by the tenants to the owner of the property, but no evidence has been filed by the assessee before any of the authorities. Not only that the assessee has not furnished any details about the PAN number, identity of the tenants, etc. In the absence of any valid evidence, the submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. In the written submission dated 13.10.2015 before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has also submitted that no independent enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. Without giving any details about the tenants, it is not possible for the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A) to make enquiry or order the Assessing Officer to make enquiry. Hence the submission is vague. In the written submission dated 13.10.2015 before the ld. CIT(A) at para 3.9, the assessee submits that “there is no need for him to provide any documentary evidence to show the receipt of ₹.6,00,000/- so long the previous owner of the Cenatoph Road property did not contradict the payment of ₹.6,00,000/- to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they were rejected without proper enquiry or examination of the concerned persons and therefore they are not justified in making the addition. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11 lakhs being the cash deposit made in the bank account of Saravananpet Branch of SBI when it was made by the appellant's friend Mr. R.Vijayanathan for starting a new business and the same was also taken back by him when the intended business could not start. The amount was held by the appellant only as a custodian of Mr. R.Vijayanathan and it does not belong to the appellant. The lower authorities have rejected the confirmation given by the said person without any valid reason and without any examination of the concerned person. 7. The appellant submits that he has discharged his initial onus of proving the credits/deposits by filing confirmation letters form the said parties and they were also identified. The creditworthiness of the parties were not put to examination by summoning the said creditors and the amounts were added without any valid grounds. 8. The appellant therefore prays that the addition of ₹ 57,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that this amount has been received on account of the Rental Advance received for letting out on rent his property at Cenotaph road. The assessee has stated that this Cenotaph Road property was acquired by him during this relevant year under consideration. He further stated that the tenant already existed with the previous owner before his purchase of the property and continued the tenancy with him. The rental advance paid by the tenant earlier was held in credit by the previous owner. This sum of ₹.5,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee by the previous owner of the property by directly depositing cash into his above mentioned Bank account no. 30725338862. The Assessing Officer has observed that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credit by establishing the identity of the person, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the person. Since the assessee has failed to establish the identity of the person who actually remitted this advance money through the previous owner although he was his own tenant at a later stage. He failed to furnish his name and address as well. Moreover, the assessee has not produced any proof of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y documentary evidence to show the receipt of ₹.6,00,000/- so long the previous owner of the property did not contradict of the payment of the amount to the appellant. It is also incorrect on the part of the appellant to hold that he has discharged the onus cast upon him. The assessee should have provided PAN of the tenant, the copies of the relevant ITR and the nature of his business activity etc. to prove his identity. These explanations do not come to the rescue of the appellant being devoid of any evidentiary value. From the perusal and analysis of the entire submissions of the appellant, it is revealed that besides submitting the above explanations, the appellant has not been able to provide any documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the tenant and his creditworthiness. The assessee has not been able to discharge the very basic onus cast upon him. Moreover, the contradiction in the replies of the assessee that this amount of ₹ 5,00,000/-was deposited in his bank account by the previous owner and not by himself, also goes against the assessee. Therefore, after considering the submissions of the assessee, but not accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or order the Assessing Officer to make enquiry. Hence the submission is vague. In the written submission dated 13.10.2015 before the ld. CIT(A) at para 3.9, the assessee submits that there is no need for him to provide any documentary evidence to show the receipt of ₹ .6,00,000/- so long the previous owner of the Cenatoph Road property did not contradict the payment of ₹ .6,00,000/- to the assessee or the Assessing Officer has any information to that effect which he has chosen to bring upon record in support of the assessment order , appears to be contrary to the rental agreement, wherein, it was mentioned that the tenants have paid the rental advance/payable to the owner of the property Shri Selvam, the assessee. In view of the above fact and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹.25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hunk of cash of ₹.25,00,000/- on a single day in his house. Further, the following entry is found in the cash book of the assessee for the financial year 2010-11 with respect to the said cash credit of ₹.25,00,000/-: Date Particulars Debit Credit Balance 07-02-2011 State Bank of India 25,00,000.00 27,04,722.50 Dr 08-02-2011 State Bank of India 25,00,000.00 2,04,722.50 Dr The above entry indicates that the cash of ₹.25,00,000/- was taken from bank on 07.02.2011 and the same deposited next day into the same bank account. But it is found from the Gopalapuram Branch of SBI bank through a letter dated 10.01.2014 by calling for information under section133(6) of the Act that the said cash of ₹.25,00,000/- was deposited by the assessee himself only on 07.02.2011 and not on 08.02.2011. This improper accounting of said cash credit itself gives raise to doubt on the credibility of such t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not come to the light. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce Shri S. Sathyamurthy along with his saving details before the Assessing Officer for verification. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for summoning Shri S. Sathyamurthy for making enquiry and verification of his savings. If Shri S. Sathyamurthy fails to appear or the assessee fails to produce Shri S. Sathyamurthy before the Assessing Officer along with all details, the addition made by the Assessing Officer stands sustained. With the above directions, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The next ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash deposit. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has shown a cash deposit of ₹.14,50,000/- on 19.02.2011 in his saving bank account with the State Bank of India account number 30725338862. During the course of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee himself only on 19.02.2011 and not on 07.02.2011. This improper accounting of said cash credit itself gives raise to the doubt on the credibility and genuineness of such transaction. Also the assessee submits that this advance of ₹ .15,00,000/- has been returned before 31.03.2011 as ₹ .10,80,000/- from his bank account and ₹ .4,20,000/- by cash. But it is found from the bank statement of the assessee that with respect to ₹ .10,80,000/- the assessee has himself withdrawn ₹ .10,80,000/- as cash on 14.03.2011. And with respect to ₹ .4,20,000/- the assessee himself submitted that he has returned in cash. In both the transactions, the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of such transaction i.e. the assessee has not substantiated such payment of ₹ .15,00,000/- in cash with any documentary proof. The assessee has not produced any proof of payment of such cash and also has not established the identity to whom it was paid. 7.2 Hence, in view of the above reasons as well as since the assessee has not explained the nature and source of such cash credit of ₹.15,00,000/- into his cash book on 06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The last ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹.11,00,000/-. 8.1 As per the information under AIR, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee was maintaining one more saving bank account with the State Bank of India at Saravanampatti. This bank account was not revealed by the assessee in his income tax return and nor in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The AR of the assessee has informed the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not having any such bank account. As per the information obtained from the bank, the details of cash deposits in the said bank account are as under: Date Particulars Amount 17.09.2010 Cash Deposit Self 3,00,000/- 04.11.2010 Cash Deposit Self 3,00,000/- 11.12.2010 Cash Deposit Self 5,00,000/- Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; .11,00,000/- in cash with any documentary proof The assessee has not produced any proof of receipt of such cash from R.vijayananthan as claimed by the assessee in his response to the show cause. Further, the assessee has not at all accounted the transactions of this bank account in his books of accounts (neither in cash book nor in bank book). This itself gives raise to doubt on the credibility of source of such cash deposits. Only after a show cause notice on the said cash deposits was issued, the assessee responded with some explanation in his submission to the show cause. Unless the scrutiny is done, this concealment could not have been unearthed i.e. except for the efforts of the department, the assessee would not have revealed this information of having a bank account in Saravanampatti Branch of SBI. As pointed out above (para 4), even when the assessee was asked to produce the details of all bank accounts and copies of the bank statements of the same during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he had only one savings bank A/c in Gopalapuram (Chennai) in SBI having A/c no. 30725338862. 8.3 Hence in view of the above reasons discussed and since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation letter have only a narrative value. Hence, it is held that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the entire transaction, the genuineness of the identity of the person making the advances and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Accordingly, the action of the AO in making an addition of ₹ 11,00,000/- effected under section 69A of the Act, is sustained. 8.5 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8.6 We have heard rival contentions, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to the addition of ₹.11,00,000/-, other than the piece of paper in the form of confirmation letter, the assessee has not filed any details even before the Tribunal. However, we are of the opinion that until and unless proper enquiries are made with Shri R. Vijayanathan, the actual facts will not come to the light. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce Shri R. Vijayanathan along with books of account, etc. before the Assessing Officer for verification. Accordingly, we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
