TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd consequently the assessee would under normal circumstances accept the said amount to be his income. That does not make it the income of the assessee. Assessee is very well entitled to prove that it is not his income. In the present case, much more than the assessee proving that it is not his income, it is the Revenue which has produced evidences to show that it is not the income of the assessee. It is the Assessing Officer who has accepted the claim that the amount of ₹ 1.00 crore in respect of which the promissory notes have been issued and found in the course of search is in fact the advance given to the assessee by Shri N. Elamaran. The purpose for which Shri N. Elamaran has given the advance, is also brought out by AO bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is a Director in M/s. Styleone Retail Concepts Private Limited and M/s. Lokaa Developer Private Limited and also the proprietor of M/s. Shoppers, a retail showroom. It was a submission that the assessee was substantially in the business of dealing in school uniforms and clothes. It was a submission that there was a search on the premises of one Shri V. Selvakumar on 13.07.2016. In the course of search, certain promissory notes issued by the assessee were found. On being questioned of the nature of the transaction, the assessee had submitted that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the materials supplied. It was further a submission that even before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was categorically confirmed that the amount of ₹ 50.00 lakhs each for each of the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were only advances and that Shri N. Elamaran had disclosed the said amount of advances given as his undisclosed income for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The learned Authorized Representative drew out attention to para-4.7(iv) of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has not produced any primary material evidences in support of any supply of uniform dress materials or other services carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was the only promissory note that required to be considered as the income of the assessee. It was a submission that it was for the assessee to prove that the amount of ₹ 1.00 crore had been disclosed by the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee having not shown nor produced any evidences to show that the amount of ₹ 1.00 crore received by him was not his income, the same is liable to be assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee as has been done by the Assessing officer and as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he credit. If the assessee is unable to prove the source of the credit, then it is deemed to be the income of the assessee. 9. In the present case, the source of the credit is Shri N. Elamaran and Shri Elamaran has also confirmed the advance. Therefore, the question of the said advance or the credit being treated as a deemed income of the assessee no more survives. It is also an admitted fact that Shri N. Elamaran has himself offered the amount of ₹ 1.00 crore as his undisclosed income relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The fact that Shri Elamaran has offered the amount has never been intimated to the assessee and consequently the assessee would under normal circumstances accept the said amount to be his income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
