9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee is an individual and salaried person, filed her Return of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 18.08.2011 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,22,940/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, on perusal of bank statements, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had cash deposit in her bank account of Rs. 34,38,050/- and earned interest on bank deposit of Rs. 592/-. Besides the cash deposit, the assessee has had a credit of disbursement credit of Rs. 7,50,000/-, transfer credit of Rs. 3,25,000/-, Gandevi Sugar Credit Rs. 31,486/- and LIC Transfer Credit Rs. 30,236/-. In another bank account the assessee has cash credit of Rs. 2,09,000/- and clearing credit of Rs. 3,00,000/-. As the assessee is a salaried person and there was huge credit and cash deposit in her bank account, the assessing Officer was of the view that such huge cash deposit is abnormal. The assessing officer issued show cause notice to explain credit entry and the source of withdrawals in the bank account. The contents of show cause notice is reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 4 of the assessment order. The assessee filed her reply dated 17.10.2013. The contents of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were caused. And on verification, it was found that agricultural income is not genuine. 3. The Assessing Officer further issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2013, contents of which is extracted in para 4.3 of the assessment order. In the show cause notice, the assessing officer noted that notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to Jain Trading Company, Harshad Mango Product P Ltd., Royal Gol Farm and to Shri Swastik Food Product. In response to the notice under section 133(6), Shri Ishwarlal Hiralal Shah, proprietor of Jain Kirana Store, appeared before the Assessing Officer and stated that he has no business in the name of Jain Trading Company. The bill of Jain Trading Company was confronted to him and that he stated that the bills were not issued by him. For Harshad Mango Products, it was reported that no transaction as carried out with the assessee, however raw materials were purchased from Shri Virendrasinh Paramar (husband of the assessee) and payments were made in financial year 2007-08. From Harshad Mango Products, it was replied that payments were made through Demand Draft and not cash. No reply was received from Royal Gor Farm and Shri Swastik Food Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent treated those bills as bogus. The replies of those third parties were not provided to the assessee. The husband of the assessee has shown agricultural income which has been assessed in his name. The bill do not pertain to the income of the assessee, which was treated as bogus bill, thus, bills were in the name of assessee's husband. The assessee furnished cash flow statement of past years and also tried to explain that major income from of agriculture in the past accumulating in cash and the agricultural income belongs to her husband. The assessee also furnished year wise income of herself and of her husband. The assessed furnished the opening cash balance with other as on 01.04.2010, with details of income of assessee from assessment year 2005-06 to 2011-12 consisting of income from salary, agricultural income, income from house property was also furnished. The assessee also furnished Form-7/12 and 8A [agricultural ownership document] of her husband to prove the genuineness of agricultural income. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and the documents evidence furnished by the assessee held that assessee is a teacher and her so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome with computation of income of assessee and her husband from A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12. 7. In compliance of direction of the bench the assessee also furnished the details of her income from A.Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11, income of her husband from A.Y. 2005-06, details of income of her husband from agriculture and house property, copy of form No. 6, 7/12 and 8A of agriculture holding of her husband. 8. Ground No. 1 relates to addition under section 69A of Rs. 34,01,300/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee as well as her husband both are employed as a teacher from last three decades. The assessee was having joint account with her husband. The amount deposited in the bank account includes the income earned by her husband. Husband of the assessee is also having agricultural income which was also deposited in the joint account with the assessee. The assessee explained before the lower authorities that cash deposits including her and her husband savings of last so many years. The assessee furnished the bills of agricultural income in the name of her husband. The assessee furnished the bills of agricultural income in the name of her husband. The assessee's son had gone ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was transferred from other accounts through Demand Draft. The assessee has to prove the source of withdrawal, the assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposite. The assessing officer in para 4.9 of the assessment order has clearly held that the assessee has not proved the destination of withdrawal given to her son. The assessee has not produced any conclusive proof of cash deposit. The Assessing Officer also held that benefit of telescoping is not available in case of assessee. The financial statement clearly shows the modus-operandi unaccounted income of the assessee. The onus was on the assessee to explain the cash entries. The assessee failed to explain the source of credit in her account. The Assessing Officer has already given set off of income declared by assessee's husband. The ld. DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of grounds of appeal. 12. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also deliberated on the documentary evidences and case law relied by ld. AR for the assessee. The assessing officer made addition by taking his view that assessee is a Government Employee and was mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
