Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5413 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2834 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2516 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2291 (SC)
REFERRED Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P) Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2950 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1558 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3778 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Deepak Real Estate Developers (P.) Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3711 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Hotz Industries Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3683 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2646 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Scans (P.) Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1939 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Hari Singh & Associates 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1745 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED DIT v. Jyoti Foundation 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2463 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Spectra Shares & Scrips P. Ltd. v. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1603 (AP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0367 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. DLF Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0340 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2040 (Del-HC)
REFERRED ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Hero Auto Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1714 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Software Consultants 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0915 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. International Travel House Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2245 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Vikas Polymers 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2189 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1600 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1573 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ashish Rajpal 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0505 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0204 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0111 (HP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0690 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sunil Goyal 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0587 (Uttarakhand-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0672 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Smt. Renu Gupta v. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0663 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Max India Ltd. 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1548 (SC)
REFERRED Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1827 (Gau-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Makal Suta Cotton Co. (P) Ltd. 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0835 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Pt. Lashkari Ram v. CIT 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0422 (All-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Bhagwan Das 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0391 (All-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers 2004 TaxPub(DT) 0443 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1304 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Arvind Jewellers 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0243 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0528 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1027 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Mahavar Traders 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0813 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Income Tax Officer v. Ch. Atchaiah 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0726 (SC)
REFERRED Duggal & Co. v. CIT 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0122 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Active Traders (P) Ltd. 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0118 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Gabrial India Ltd. 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1357 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust 1988 TaxPub(DT) 0738 (All-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 1988 TaxPub(DT) 0529 (MP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1234 (MP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1425 (SC)
REFERRED Additional CIT v. Hanuman Agarwal 1985 TaxPub(DT) 0208 (Pat-HC)
REFERRED Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1055 (SC)
REFERRED Additional CIT v. Mukur Corporation 1978 TaxPub(DT) 0300 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT 1978 TaxPub(DT) 0231 (All-HC)
REFERRED Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0725 (SC)
REFERRED Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional CIT & Ors. 1975 TaxPub(DT) 0267 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0389 (SC)
REFERRED Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT 1968 TaxPub(DT) 0135 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1716 (Ind-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 68

Where Pr. CIT was of the view that the telescoping of unaccounted income to Hundi loans had not been examined properly moreover, no enquiry had been made in respect of receipt of funds from repayment of Hundi loans, there was no independent verification of items due to which amount surrendered was reduced, further, the AO had not examined year wise investment made by the assessee thus the cash deposited in bank was therefore, explained.

Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank -

A survey operation under section 133A was conducted at the business premise of the assessee on 23-9-2011 and subsequently as per affidavit dated 23-11-2012, the assessee had explained that the unaccounted receipts amounting to Rs. 6,21,25,115 as per LP102 where utilized in making the hundi loans and remaining amount of hundi loans Rs. 10,43,74,885 should be considered as unexplained. According to Pr.CIT amount was not properly verified with cash book and their identity and genuineness of the transaction was not established. The assessee was not asked to produce the parties for verifciation. The sources of cash deposits in the bank accounts were not enquired and hence it remains unexpalined. Mere stating that the hundi loans of Rs. 16.65 crores recovered during the year cannot be conclusive evidence. Held: There was no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee stated in his statement that he was unable to explain the source of cash loan given through hundis and offered a sum of Rs. 16,65,00,000 as additional income for the assessment year 2012-13. Revenue had no objection for such offer when this amount was treated to be income of the year under appeal, it can safely infer that this amount was available with the assessee for making further investments. Undisputed the basis of unexplained income was recovery of hundis being annexure as LP-06 and LP-07 of survey proceedings. The hundis were having different dates and maturity period. It can be concluded that the maturity amount was available with the assessee for making further investment. It was noteworthy that root of addition was the recovery of hundis. In case it was presumed that all the hundis so made were bogus and reflects imaginary figure as the assessee failed to furnish confirmation from hundi holders, their identity and PAN etc, in such event only amount would be taxable what the assessee deposited in its bank account. When there was a maturity of hundi as well as investment in hundis normal corollary would be that the amount invested was out of the money received from maturity of hundis, unless adverse material was brought on record. In this case the amount surrendered by the assessee was higher than what it was found to be unexplained cash deposits in its bank account. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order giving set off of the maturity amount of the hundi loans.

Followed:Ananthram Veera Singhaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1055 (SC)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2012-13


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT