The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6724 (Ahd-Trib)


Section 69

Where addition on deposits in cash made by assessee in various bank accounts, investment in lands and unsecured loans provided to company ''KIT' was partly confirmed rejecting assessee's contention hence, double addition in respect of transaction made through bank(s) was also deleted.

Income from undisclosed Sources - Addition under section 69 - Deposit of cash in bank, credit in bank account, and investment made by assessee as well as daughter-in-law -

The issue in the instant case relates to the deposit of cash made by the assessee in the bank accounts, investment in the lands and the loan provided to KIT. The AO made additions amounting to Rs. 4,75,71,950 (Rs. 32,35,000 + Rs. 19,00,000 + Rs. 55,99,400 + Rs. 75,26,000 + Rs. 57,00,000 + Rs. 2,36,11,550 to the total income of the assessee as unexlained investment under section 69. CIT(A) restricted the additions to Rs. 4,32,13,153 as against the addition of Rs. 4,75,71, 951 made by the AO.Held: Assessee failed to file any documentary evidence suggesting that there was some cash available with him out of the agricultural operations carried on by him. Therefore, in the absence of such documentary evidence Tribunal reject the contention of the assessee. Benefit for all the deposit of cash in bank had already been provided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the same could not be adjusted against the deposit of cheques in the Central Bank of India. Therefore, contention of the assessee was rejected. Regarding the addition of Rs. 33.50 lakhs these payments were made through the banking channel by the assessee. It was also not in dispute that the entire credit entries reflecting in the Central Bank of India had been added to the total income of the assessee, therefore further addition of the impugned amount will result the double addition to the income of the assessee. Therefore, Tribunal was inclined to delete the addition of Rs. 33.50 lakhs. Regarding the investment made by the daughter-in-law namely Margi Darpan Shah of the 57 Lacs, the assessee had vide letter dt. 24-12-2012 had admitted that the impugned fund was provided by the assessee to his daughter in law. Moreover, the assessee had not explained the source of such investment before the authorities below. Even before Tribunal, the authorised representative could not controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the contention of the assessee was rejected. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs, there was no addition made on account of the deposit of cheque of Rs.15 lakhs in the State Bank of India. Therefore, the contention of the assessee was rejected to such extent.


FAVOUR : In assessee's favour (partly).

A.Y. : 2010-2011


Section 69


'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : /