TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by him with the Allahabad Bank, Fazilka on 06.01.2009, therefore, the value of the deposit of ₹ 31,15,000/- was treated as income of the assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69. Even otherwise, Sec.69A further clarifies about the unexplained money and crux of that Section reflects that the money and value of the billion, jewellery or other valuable article, if assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory then the same may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Referring to alternative plea of the assessee that one of the friend namely Sh. Sukhdev Singh of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in Appeal No.243-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/11-12, relevant to the Asst. Year:2009-10 by CIT(A)- Bathinda. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual by the name, Sh. Gurbhej Singh, S/o Sh. Major Singh had filed his return of income of ₹ 1,16,450/- for Asst Year:-2009-10. The returned income was purported to be from sale of milk. The appellant s case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposits exceeding 10 lakhs in the saving account maintained in Allahabad Bank, Fazilka. The Assessing Officer procured a copy of the bank account of the appellant by issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act ) to the branch manager of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case the addition of ₹ 31,15,000/- has been made by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The provisions of Sec.69 are not at all applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. As such the addition made is unjustified, uncalled for and the addition made on this score may be deleted as the same is illegal, invalid and void ab initio in the eyes of law. The assessee in support of its case submitted that while completing the assessment, the AO made addition of ₹ 31,15,000/- by invoking the provisions of Sec.69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and out of this addition, the worthy CIT(A) allowed the benefit of ₹ 15,68,000/- and sustained the addition of ₹ 15,47,000/- against which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 15,45,000/- as the same has been made purely on the basis of conjecture, surmises and suppositions. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the contention of the assessee to the effect that no addition can be made u/s 69 of the Act having no legs to stand in law and the proposition of the Ld. AR is contrary to the provisions of Sec.69 of the Act. 6. We have gone through with the facts and circumstances of the case, as it reflects from the assessment order that more than 10 opportunities have been given to the assessee for joining the assessment proceedings, however, the assessee did not co-operate in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. From the plain reading of Sec.69, it reflects that it is not mandatory to maintain the books of accounts. The ingredients of Sec.69 reflects that where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income. If any classifies that for application of Sec.69 it is not mandatory to maintain the books of accounts and therefore, it cannot be said that Sec.69 presupposes two conditions (i) That the books of account should be maintained (ii) that the investment should be made outside the books of account. Sec.69 further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has sold his agricultural land for an amount of ₹ 16,30,000/- which was given by him to the assessee for safe keeping in his bank account on 06.01.2009 and the same was returned on 20.01.2009 does not sounds to be satisfactory explanation because in the statement before the Assessing Officer i.e., Sh. Shukhdev Singh claimed to have sold land of Sh. Sawarn Singh, s/o Sh. Harbansh Singh by sale deed executed on 25.06.2008, however, the said amount of ₹ 16,30,000/- alleged to be given to the assessee only on 06.01.2009 and it reflects that the property does not belong to Sh. Shukhdev Singh but he has acted only as holder of power attorney of Sh. Sawarn Singh, S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh and in principle consideration amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
