TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e., to another, despite requiring, as stated, funds for meeting the financial crisis of his business and discharge the debts of his, since deceased, father. There is, thus, considered whichever way, nothing to justify the assessee’s explanation of the cash with him as on account of an advance against sale of his residential house. Even as no such offer was made, it makes one wonder as to why one, in the process of shifting abroad, as inferable from his having gone abroad before 10.04.2008, would consider investing in India and, further, in a residential house, even as his residential needs are being ostensibly met and, in any case, would abate on his proceeding abroad. Even if one would were to take into account a change of events, i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant : Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.) For the Respondent : Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 13.06.2017, dismissing the assessee s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 16.12.2010 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, found to have deposited cash in his savings bank account (with ICICI Bank, Kapurthala) at ₹ 12.90 lacs during the year, in explanation for ₹ 6.50 lacs so deposited [on 10.04.2007 (Rs.4 lacs) and 03.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uently (paras 4.6 and 4.7 of the impugned order). The addition being confirmed thus, aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Bhasin, after narrating the facts, would submit that the Revenue had not brought any material on record to rebut the assessee s reliance on the sale agreement dated 10.04.2007, signed by two witnesses as well, i.e., apart from the parties. The assessee s reliance on the decision in P.K. Noorjahan (supra) was also not met by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would, on the other hand, submit that the assessee continues to retain the amount to date, i.e., despite lapse of over 10 years. There is, however, no plea or contention of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contemplated the sale of his residential house. Yet, a time period of one year was allowed by the assessee to the buyer for completing the transaction. One wonders why, the assessee s need for funds, being statedly, immediate. Was it that the assessee was planning to shift to another, perhaps smaller, accommodation, for which he needed time? If so, there is nothing to indicate or so suggest on record. The cash flow statement (PB pgs. 3-4) shows a closing (as on 31.03.2008) cash balance of ₹ 3.67 lacs, as against an opening cash balance of ₹ 0.20 lacs, with an average of ₹ 4 lacs during the year! Why did the assessee, then, in dire and pressing need of funds, maintain such a high cash balance even as he considers, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of opportunity before the ld. CIT(A). However, he nowhere seeks his leave, invoking rule 46A, to produce Sh. Kuldeep Singh as his witness. There is also no offer to produce Sh. Kuldeep Singh before the ld. CIT(A), before whom the proceedings were on for nearly 6 years. Why? This is most surprising considering that the assessee makes out, and only rightly so, a strong case for denial of proper opportunity by the AO. It may be that Sh. Kuldeep Singh became a non-resident; the assessee stating before the ld. CIT(A) of his going abroad as the reason for his not keeping his date (10.04.2008) and completing the transaction. If so, his affidavit, confirming the transaction, stating the source of the funds, along with his return of income, etc., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001, is in serious doubt (refer: CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC)). For the foregoing reasons, I have little hesitation in confirming the impugned assessment and, accordingly, decline interference. The assessee s reliance on the decision in P.K. Noorjahan (supra) is also misplaced. Per the said decision, it stands explained by the Apex Court that the discretion conferred upon the AO by the use of the word may is to be exercised keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., even if the explanation offered by the assessee is, in the opinion of the assessing authority, not satisfactory. In the facts of that case; the assessment years involved being AYs. 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee, a Muslim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
