9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary , JM Aggrieved by the order dated 26/12/2018 in appeal No. 74/BWN/TRF/2013-14 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Hisar ("Ld. CIT(A)") in the case of Babu Ram Mittal ("the assessee"), for the assessment year 2008-09, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and its assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, assessee produced five persons in witness out of six before learned CIT, who recorded their statements. It was found by the Ld. CIT that none of the persons were aware of the transactions with the assessee as well as the details of their share of land purported to be sold by the assessee. Some of the persons denied to enter into deal of land and agreement. One of such alleged purchasers was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce remaining one person namely Sh. Dharambir, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer observed that the onus that lay upon the assessee to explain the source of deposit could not be discharged and therefore relying upon the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Mussadi Lal Ram Bharose, 165 ITR 14(SC) and CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal, 252 IT 157 (Del), made addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- u/s. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce the requisite witnesses before the Assessing Officer in support of its claim. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of submissions made on either side. It is not in dispute that the assessee could not produce requisite witnesses before the authorities below to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account. The impugned order also reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
