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 →

Korapolu Kanaka Raju Versus ITO, Ward-1 (4) , Visakhapatnam

2018 (2) TMI 872 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Undisclosed cash deposits in bank account - Held that:- The enquiries of the A.O. revealed that the parties who have purportedly made the impugned advances were related parties and they did not have the creditworthiness to make the advances. The lack of financial capacity of the parties clearly shows an indication that the sale agreements were only make believe arrangements. Since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence to establish the genuineness of the advance, we do not find any reason 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

ed the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. - Estimation of income @ 5% - A.O. has rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income - Held that:- A.R. did not make out a case for estimation of income @ 4% with relevant evidences except arguing that earlier percentage of income required to be adopted. We are unable to consider the request of the assessee to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification for allowing the telescopic benefit and request of the Ld. A.R. is hereby rejected. - I.T.A.No.425/Vizag/2016 - Dated:- 9-2-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR For The Respondent : Shri Sesha Srinivas, DR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-1 {CIT(A)}, Visakhapatnam vide ITA No.304/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Visakhapatnam with account No.713957051 and made cash deposits in the bank account to the tune of ₹ 10.00 lakhs for which the assessee explained the source as advances received for sale of land. The assessee stated that a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs was received from Sri K. Venkata Ganesh and K. Gouri Devi as per the agreement dated 21.1.2010 and further sum of ₹ 5 lakhs from Sri A. Venkata Rao and A. Padmavathi vide agreement dated 3.2.2010. In respect of K. Venkata Ganesh, the agreement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o.1206 admeasuring 163.80 Sq.yds. of site and the agreement was unregistered. The second agreement was entered into by the assessee with Shri Ambati Venkata Rao and Smt. Ambati Padmavathi on 3.2.2010 for sale of land at Dr.No.26-7-22, Panda Street, Visakhapatnam for a consideration of ₹ 16 lakhs and received the advance of ₹ 5 lakhs. Both the amounts are received in cash and the agreements furnished were photocopies. In both the cases the stamp papers were purchased on 28.10.2009. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It is pertinent to note that the assessee was asked to explain the source for the cash deposit to the tune of ₹ 10 lakhs noted in his bank account, which was not disclosed to the Department. The assessee had raised a plea that it represented advance from sale of property. But the inquiry made by the AO clearly reveal that such a claim was not genuine. It is also relevant to note that the alleged parties who have purportedly made the impugned advances were related parties, and they did not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lea for telescoping is also without merits, as the plea all along had been that the credit was out of advance received. Therefore, the alternative plea without supporting evidence is rejected. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In the instant case, the assessee had made the cash deposits of ₹ 10 lakhs ₹ 5 lakhs on 21.1.2010 and ₹ 5 lakhs on 3.2.2010 both the deposits explained to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce. The A.O. has also given a finding that the sale agreements do not bear the signatures of the purchasers. The enquiries of the A.O. revealed that the parties who have purportedly made the impugned advances were related parties and they did not have the creditworthiness to make the advances. The lack of financial capacity of the parties clearly shows an indication that the sale agreements were only make believe arrangements. Since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence to establish the ge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

out of which ₹ 7,49,506/- was held to be the receipts from Orissa Stevedores which was accepted by the A.O. For the remaining amount, the assessee has neither explained the source of credit with names and parties from whom the amounts were received nor the expenditure incurred in connection with the receipt of ₹ 19,30,930/-. Therefore, the A.O. treated the entire deposit of ₹ 19,30,930/- as unexplained money and accordingly brought to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a Stevedores was filed. With regard to the remaining cheque deposits amounting to ₹ 19,30,930/the assessee was not able to explain and prove the nature of these receipts. It is noted that the AO had given several opportunities to prove the nature of these receipts. But the assessee failed to prove that these receipts were from his business operation. No information whatsoever, was filed in regard to these cheque receipts. Therefore, the AO is justified in assessing the amount of ₹ 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sources and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. 8. Ground No.1.3 is related to the estimation of income @ 5%. The Ld. A.R. argued during the appeal hearing that the Ld. CIT(A) considered the percentage of profit @ 4% in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y 2009-10, hence requested to adopt the estimation of inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0.12.2014 and written submissions dated 28.1.2016. I have also perused the assessment folder. It is not in dispute that the assessee could not produce proper bills & vouchers for expenses, and as most of the expenses were in cash they were not verifiable. Therefore, the AO is justified in rejecting the books of account. It is also relevant to note that the assessee has agreed for estimation of business receipts at 5% in his letter dated 21.3.2013 filed before the AO. It is also pertinent to .....

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