TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions because the assessee has failed to furnish the documents relating to the criminal proceedings neither before the Income Tax Authorities nor before the ITAT - Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.270/Coch/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2020 - Shri George George K, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 03.09.2018. The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007. 2. There is a delay of 589 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition and an Affidavit stating therein the reasons for not filing the appeal on time. The relevant portion of the Affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follow:- The above appeal was filed by me before this Hon ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 3.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam u/s 250 of the I.T.Act, for the assessment year 2006-07. The said order was received on 15.09.2018. I was suffering from Carcinoma colon since 2017. Later there developed recurrence wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Managing Director of a company named M/s Enjayes Spices Chemical Oil Ltd. The AO received information that the assessee had invested a sum of ₹ 18.00 lakhs in the above said company. Hence the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and asked for explanations with regard to the above said investment. The assessee explained that the above said company had engaged a person named Mr. A.L.Prasad for arranging loan from foreign sources. In that connection, M/s Enjayes Spices Chemical Oil Ltd., paid a sum of ₹ 6.25 Lakhs to Shri A.L. Prasad and further a sum of ₹ 5.75 lakhs was paid by a person named Shri Ruban Thomas, who was son in law of the assessee. Thus Shri A.L. Prasad was paid a sum of ₹ 12.00 lakhs in aggregate. It was claimed that Shri Ruban Thomas, who is the son in law of the assessee, has advanced the amount of ₹ 5.75 Lakhs to Shri A.L. Prasad on behalf of the company. It was further submitted that Shri A.L. Prasad failed to arrange foreign funds and hence, the company demanded back the amount of₹ 12.00 lakhs paid to him. In that connection, it was claimed that cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was reposted to 08.07.2016. Since the assessee did not respond to the above letter, a letter was issued to the assessee on 14.07.20'16 proposing to complete the assessment by rejecting the assessee's claim. The assessee was given time till 25.07.2016 to file his objection to the above proposal. 7. In reply, the assessee under the covering letter dated 23.07.2016 furnished copy of warrant of arrest issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Pathanamthitta, order of the Magistrate, copy of petition submitted by Advocate and copy of certificate issued by Advocate Shri Abraham George dated 17.09.2008 explaining the events. Further, the assessee stated that he has paid back the amount of ₹ 5.75lakhs due to Ruban Thomas to Shiney Ruban on 29.06.2016 as per direction given by Ruban Thomas. 8. I have examined the evidence furnished by the assessee. An examination of the warrant of arrest, order of the Magistrate, copy of petition submitted by Advocate and copy of certificate issued by Advocate Shri Abraham George reveals that there is no involvement of Shri Ruban Thomas in the case. There is nothing in these documents to suggest that Shri Ruban Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, raising following grounds:- 1. The orders passed by the authorities below are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The 1st Appellate authority ought to have considered and appreciated the evidence produced by the Appellant independently and decided the appeal. 3. The Assessing Officer ought to have properly considered the documents produced before passing the impugned order. Though copies of accounts as well as details of relevant bank transactions to prove the genuineness of loan from Appellant's son-in-law were produced before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the same while passing the impugned order. 4. The Assessing Officer ought to have borne in mind that in criminal complaints filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque, it is not necessary to disclose the source of money of the Complainant at the time of filing of the Complainant. It is only to be disclosed at the time of trial, that too if insisted by the opposite party. Therefore the authorities below erred in not accepting the fact that Mr.Prasad had returned money in settlement of the criminal case out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2001, the same cannot be assessed during the year under consideration, since what was received during the year under consideration was only refund of amount given to Shri Prasad. However, I make it clear that it is the responsibility of the assessee to substantiate the claim of receipt of loan in the year 2001. According to Ld A.R, the documents relating to criminal proceedings may throw light on the above said claim. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same afresh in the light of documents that may be furnished by the assessee in this regard. I also make it clear that the addition relating to ₹ 5.75 lakhs shall stand sustained, if the documents relating to criminal proceedings did not contain anything about the claim of receipt of ₹ 5.75 lakhs by way of loan from the son-in-law of the assessee. 9.1 The Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation had clearly stated that the addition relating to ₹ 5,75,000 shall stand confirmed if the documents relating to criminal proceedings did not contain anything about the claim of receipt of ₹ 5.75 lakh by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
