9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that additional evidence should not be accepted as nothing stopped the assessee to produce the same before the A.O. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 10,43,319/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 3. Assessee filed return of income of Rs. 4,86,547/- on 30/3/2007. In the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the act, income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 53,93,066/- after making various additions i.e. Rs. 37 lakh u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act being unexplained investments in mutual funds, Rs. 11,43,319/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits appearing in the assessee's bank A/c and Rs. 56,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the assessee's bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of bank accounts collected, the assessee can be given benefit of some investments only which could be said to be verifiable [even though exact dates do not match] from the bank accounts copy available on record now. After giving benefit to these investments as reported in AIR information which could be said to be matching & after excluding the sums reported in the AIR information reported as "Others", the following investments still remained, the source of which could not be explained at all. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the source of these credits is not verifiable, and there has been no compliance from the assessee these credits amounting to Rs. 11,43,319/- are added to the total income of the assessee being unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d report dated 2/11/2012 simply repeated the observations made in the assessment order regarding the issuance of notices and non compliance on the part of the assessee but did not commented or made any observations on merits. The only observation made by the A.O is that as the assessee had not filed any submissions/replies during the course of the assessment proceedings in spite of various opportunities, the additional evidence filed by him at the appeal stagee should not be accepted. The assessee's explanation in this regard was that he was under judicial custody for the period 20/11/2008 to 2/1/2009. The same documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the FIR filed against him, a copy of his arrest letter, copy of court proceedings not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 07.04.2005 - 15,000 While explaining the source of these cash deposits the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that these cash deposits had been made out of cash in hand available as on 1/4/2005 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. This explanation of the assessee was rightly not accepted by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not maintain any book of account. No cash flow statement was available on record to show that the assessee actually had cash in hand of Rs. 2,50,000/- as on 1/4/2005. Therefore, amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited in cash on different dates in ICICI Bank as mentioned above was rightly added to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credits in the assessee's bank accounts was restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
