9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance of the contesting counsel would go a long way in enabling the Bench, to reach a conclusion in the matter. 4.Therefore, we direct the Registry, to follow, hereon, the following practice, in respect of tax matters : (i) Where the Assessee is in appeal, the counsel prosecuting the appeal would serve an advance set of the appeal paper book, along with the typed set of documents, on any one of the counsels, who are empanelled to appear for the Revenue. (i)(a) We are informed by Ms.Hemalatha, who has been requested to appear for the Revenue, today, that inter se, the empanelled counsels, they can then hand over the papers, to the concerned counsels depending on the jurisdiction, ear marked for the empanelled counsel for the Revenue. (ii) The counsel for the Assessee will ensure that the appeal paper book along with the typed set of documents, unless there is grave urgency, would be served at least three (3) days, in advance. (iii) In cases, where Revenue is in appeal and, since, it is not known by the Revenue, as to who would be the counsel who would enter appearance on behalf of the Assessee, i.e., contesting party, the Revenue, will despatch, an advance intimation along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine. 8.In order to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following broad facts need to be noticed: 8.1.The Assessee had filed his return of income for the Assessment Year in issue, i.e., 2010-11 on 31.12.2010. 8.2.The Assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny. 8.3.Upon scrutiny, it was found that they were monies amounting to Rs. 30,83,000/- credited to his account. 8.4.Since, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, with the explanations given by the Authorized Representative of the Assessee, individual notices were issued under Section 133 A of the Act, to those persons, from whom, the Assessee indicated that funds had been received. 9.To be noted, out of the total credit reflected in the Assessee's account for the relevant period, i.e., a sum of Rs. 30,83,000/-, the Assessee had attempted to furnish explanation for a sum of Rs. 29,68,000/-, by attributing the source to relatives and his own means. 9.1.For the balance amount, i.e., Rs. 1,15,000/-, explanation was furnished, which was not duly supported by requisite material. 9.2.In the Assessee's words, clear and cogent explanation was furnished in respect of sums amounting to Rs. 23,48,000/-. The explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the papers in that behalf and noted that while, the sale transaction was carried out on 10.06.2008, the money was gifted only on 19.03.2010. 10.2.The mother in law, on the other hand, also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, that she had gifted to the Assessee, was sourced from her savings from agricultural income. No details of any bank account, were given. 10.3.The mother in law, did not indicate, to the Assessing Officer that she owned any agricultural land or any other asset. She did, however, try to explain that she carried out agricultural activity on leasehold land(s). 10.4.Concededly, the details of income generated from leasehold lands was not furnished to the Assessing Officer. 10.5.Furthermore, as noted by the Tribunal also, the gift deeds which were produced and are dated 19.03.2010, did not indicate the date when the gift was made. 10.6.Therefore, for these, amongst other reasons, the explanation given by the mother in law and father-in law, were not accepted. 10.7.In so far as the brothers are concerned, it is noticed that one of the brothers, i.e., Mr.S.Srinivasan, whose name is found at serial no.5 of the Table, set ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .6.In so far as the two daughters are concerned, the Assessing Officer returned a categorical finding of fact that during the relevant period, the daughters were students and therefore, they could not generated the sums which were sourced to them. The daughters did attempt to furnish an explanation to the effect that they had to receive monies from certain persons qua their own account, which were collected on their behalf by the Assessee, i.e., the father and directly, deposited in his account. 11.7.Concededly, the details of those debtors, who owed moneys to the daughters were not furnished. 11.8.In so far as the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- is concerned, which, the Assessee said he had received from his employer; concededly, the Assessee had not furnished the balance sheet of the employer. 11.9.In so far as the explanation given for his own funds was concerned, the Assessing Officer noted as follows: "With regard to the argument of his drawings being the source for deposit of case of Rs. 2,28,370, The cash balance, he refers to has got no relevance. The withdrawals are only Rs. 4.19 lakhs, which would not allow him to save 2.28 lakhs, as he needs to meet his domestic expenses. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. The onus, in this case, according to us, did not shift to the Revenue. The reason being that while, the Assessee was able to identify the source for whatever it was worth, he definitely failed to establish the creditworthiness of his source. We have ourselves examined the explanation given by the Assessee and are satisfied that there is no fundamental error committed by the authorities below in the appreciation of evidence. 15.1. Each of the relatives identified as source, clearly, lacked the capability of lending funds to the extent attributed to them by the Assessee. While, the Assessee is not expected to establish the means, by which, funds are generated by the source. In other words, look to the "source of the source" - the capability of the source to generate funds is an exercise, which needs to be carried. In the instant case, an exercise in that behalf was, in fact, carried out, which led to the conclusion that each source identified by the Assessee did not have the necessary wherewithal to provide funds to the Assessee. We are persuaded to hold that in this case, additions have not been made based on mere suspicion, surmises and/or conjectures, as alleged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
