Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (8) TMI 1426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Reducing the agricultural income - CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in spite of not furnishing the supporting evidences as sale bill of agricultural production etc - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that assessee has filed NIL agricultural income vide return of income filed u/s. 139(1) for all the years except A.Y. 2009-10. In respect of A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 the assessee has not shown any agricultural income in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, however, in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act the assessee has shown agricultural income of ₹ 80,000/- per year in all the assessment years and failed to substantiate the claim of earning agricultural income with supporting evidences sale bill etc, consequently, the AO has disallowed the claim of agricultural income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of ownership of land has allowed the claim of agricultural income to the extent of ₹ 60,000/- for A.Y. 2008-09, ₹ 80,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10 ₹ 80,000/- A.Y. 2010-11 and ₹ 1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 stating that ownership of land c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ified from the copy of intimation u/s. 143(1) that there was not detail of any computation of capital gain on account of sale of jewellery. In view of the aforesaid material facts the Ld. CIT(A) has considered that it was reasonable to hold an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- available in the hand of the assessee as on 01.04.2004. We consider that in spite of giving a number of opportunities the assessee could not establish that cash was generated on account of sale of jewellery. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The same is dismissed. Increase in the household withdrawal from the cash in hand with the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not made any enhancement in respect of household expenses and no such direction was given to the AO to increase the withdrawal of household expenses. We consider that it will be appropriated to restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide afresh and pass a speaking order after examination of the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of the AO for deciding a fresh as directed above, therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in short the Act . Since common issues are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience all are adjudicated by this common order. 2. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at residential premises of the assessee on 08.09.2010. The assessment for the relevant assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12 have been framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The AO has passed almost similar worded orders involving common/similar issues for the year under reference. In accordance with the provision of sec. 153A of the Act a notice was issued on 07.01.2011. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income till 14.02.2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee has filed return of income on 30.07.2011. Assessment Year wise return of income as per original returns u/s. 139(1) and as per return of income u/s. 153A of the act is reproduced as under:- A.Y. Date of filing return u/s. 139(1) Total Income Agriculture Income Date of filing return u/s. 153A Total Income Agriculture Income 2005-06 05.12.2005 4,61,590/- Nil 14.02.2012 5,95,330/ - 80,000/- 2006-07 20.10.2006 3,54,540/- Nil 14.02.2012 4,33,650/- 80,000/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitted by the appellant which is devoid of facts. First Ground of Appeal regarding rejection of cash flow statement:- 4. During the course of search cash was found from the premises of the assessee and also cash deposited in the various bank accounts. The assessee was not having documentary evidences to explain the sources of the cash found. The assessee has submitted the cash flow statement which was considered as an afterthought and without supporting with relevant evidences. The detailed reasons for not accepting the same are elaborated in detail at Para 3.5 on pages 15 to 18 of the assessment order. The brief reason for not accepting the cash flow statement can be summarised as under:- (a) No supporting evidence for deposits in Bank Accounts (b) Failure to furnish cash flow statement evidencing date-wise receipt of sources (c) Absence of evidence for the sale proceeds received by the appellant on sale of car (d) Failure to furnish gift deeds in relation to the gifts receipts. (e) Non-substantiation of agricultural income. (f) Failure to produce Mr. Rohit Gupta and CA Rajeev Agrawal for oral evidence, from whose company the appellant had received imprest cash and business receip .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uted fact that assessee has filed NIL agricultural income vide return of income filed u/s. 139(1) for all the years except A.Y. 2009-10. In respect of A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 the assessee has not shown any agricultural income in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, however, in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act the assessee has shown agricultural income of ₹ 80,000/- per year in all the assessment years and failed to substantiate the claim of earning agricultural income with supporting evidences sale bill etc, consequently, the AO has disallowed the claim of agricultural income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of ownership of land has allowed the claim of agricultural income to the extent of ₹ 60,000/- for A.Y. 2008-09, ₹ 80,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10 ₹ 80,000/- A.Y. 2010-11 and ₹ 1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 stating that ownership of land cannot negate the effect of having natural agricultural income in spite of not producing any supporting bill and voucher of sale of agricultural production. In the light of the above fact we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has granted sufficient relief to the assessee in spite of the facts that assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stated that Ld. CIT(A) has arbitrarily reduce the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2004 from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/-. 13. During the course of appellate proceeding the Ld. CIT(A) as per Para 10.2 has considered the claim of cash of ₹ 5,00,000/- as per cash statement as on 01.04.2004. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that assessee has failed to substantiate her claim of having cash of ₹ 5,00,000/- with relevant supporting evidences. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee was having reasonably cash to the amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- as on 01.04.2004. We have heard the rival contention on this issue. During the course of appellate proceeding the assessee has contended that cash was generated from sale of jewellery but the assessee could not establish that any capital gain from the sale of jewellery was disclosed for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee could not substantiate the same by furnishing copy of return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has also verified from the copy of intimation u/s. 143(1) that there was not detail of any computation of capital gain on account of sale of jewellery. In view of the aforesaid material facts the Ld. CIT(A) has considered that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In the appeal the assessee has stated that AO has presumed the year of acquisition to assessment year 2003-04 whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has presumed the year of acquisition to be A.Y. 2001-02 as against the claim of A.Y. 1981-82. The assessee has claimed that during the previous year relevant A.Y. 2009-10 the assessee has held gold jewellery of ₹ 8,12,440/- and disclosed the capital gain after claiming the indexation with effect from 01.04.1981. The AO has asked the assessee to substantiate the date of purchased of the gold jewellery with supporting document to establish that the same was acquired before 01.04.1981. In this regard, the assessee has submitted a copy of report of the approve valuer dated 27.02.2003. However, the assessee has failed to produce the relevant supporting purchased bill of the jewellery and could not file any other evidence to corroborate that the sale jewellery was purchased on or before 01.04.1981. Under the circumstances the AO has examined the valuer who has confirmed that the valuation of the sold jewellery was only made on 27.02.2003. In view of the above facts and for want of relevant supporting evidences the AO has taken the indexation of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /2016 this ground of appeal stand dismissed. Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12:- First Ground of Appeal:- 21. First ground of appeal is similar on facts and issue to the Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been adjudicated as above in this order and applying the same findings, this ground of appeal stand dismissed. Second and Fifth Ground of Appeal:- 22. Second ground of appeal of the assessee is pertained to addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of ₹ 1,50,000/- and addition of ₹ 10,44,946/- as unexplained cash for not proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. 23. During the course of assessment the assessee has claimed that she has received cash of ₹ 1,50,000/- from Kavita Gupta who was a relative of the assessee. The AO has added the amount to the income of the assessee on the ground that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and also the availability of the aforesaid cash was not established. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the claim of the assessee that aforesaid amount was withdrawn in cash from bank account of Kavita Gupta. Considering the submission of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that assessee was found possessing unaccounted cash in physical form as well as deposited in the books and bank accounts. It was for the assessee to explain source of the cash as well as genuineness of the transaction. It was also for the assessee to prove creditworthiness of the persons who have given her the cash. The assessee has alleged that she had received cash as imprest deposit from M/s. Technosys Technology. This stand of the assessee has elaborately examined by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) doubted the genuineness of the transaction. At the cost of repetition we would like to reiterate some part of the CIT(A) s finding:- 5.12.3. I have perused the relevant documents, and have heard the Ld. AR at length. Additionally I had called for the audited accounts of the Company concerned to verify the general availability of c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bstantiate that even TDS is made by M/s Technosys on "contract payments" and salaries. This, again, in my opinion, is an attempt to establish a fact not convincingly. If in fact the gross-receipt, unspent, remained with the appellant, why was the same not shown as received and retained upto the date of search and spent subsequent to search to the AO? Does TDS paid into Government Account after the search explain the receipt and retention till the date of search? Why while TDS certificate and company's confirmation show small payments below ₹ 20000/-, the appellant's day-to-day cashbook shows all 5 receipts of more amounts, highest being ₹ 3.73 lacs? Why oral evidences of Shri Rohit Gupta and Shri Rajesh Aggrawal as called for by the AO still not produced? 5.12.4 There is no explanation also for mismatch between strong plea before the AO and before me. In view of these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the genuineness of receipt of imprest cash of Rs, 4.5 lacs during FY 09-10 and further implied receipts of ₹ 7,71,060/- as business receipts allegedly from M/s Technosys was rightly doubted and disbelieved by the Ld. AO in light of the natu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AO has also not commented adversely. Thus, the salary receipt in cash shall remain available to the appellant to explain the deposit/availability of cash. 26. It is pertinent to observe that Shri Rajiv Agarwal and Rohit Gupta are the witness of the assessee. It was for the assessee to produce them before the AO. And the Ld. CIT(A) has observed rightlythat assessee could collect cash from different closely related enterprises but could not persuade the relevant person who were her witnesses to appear before the AO for examination is highly improbable rather it suggests that assessee does not went to produce them are trying to mislead the AO by asking him to use his powers u/s. 131(1). The first onus is upon the assessee to fulfil the conditions provided u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act up to a reliable degree, only thereafter, the AO would rebut but here the assessee herself has failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of alleged creditors. In this regard the relevant part of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- Noteworthy in this factual background is also the further fact that the appellant has not attempted to improve her .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||