Tribunal upholds income addition, disallows share broking loss claim, rejects credibility of claim. Appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,84,920/- as peak credit to the assessee's income, disallowed the claim of Rs. 23,67,580/- loss from share broking due to late filing, and rejected the credibility of the claim regarding Rs. 16,00,000/- received from the assessee's wife. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision, with the order pronounced on April 23, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of peak credit of Rs. 17,84,920/- by the Assessing Officer.
2. Non-consideration of the loss from share broking business amounting to Rs. 23,67,580/-.
3. Credibility of the cash receipt of Rs. 16,00,000/- from the assessee's wife.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Peak Credit of Rs. 17,84,920/-:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 1,87,900/- from interest receipts and agricultural income of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee engaged in commodity share broking through Aditya Birla Commodities, which was not reflected in the books of accounts or the return filed. The AO calculated the peak credit from the assessee’s bank account and added Rs. 17,84,920/- to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the books of accounts did not include share trading transactions, and the return was filed beyond the due date, disallowing the business loss claim.

2. Non-Consideration of Loss from Share Broking Business:
The assessee argued that a loss of Rs. 23,67,580/- from share broking was not claimed in the return due to late filing. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating that the return was filed beyond the due date, and as per Section 139(3) of the Act, losses cannot be carried forward if the return is not filed within the prescribed time. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee’s claim was against accounting principles and statutory provisions, thus upholding the AO’s decision.

3. Credibility of Cash Receipt from Assessee's Wife:
The assessee claimed that Rs. 16,00,000/- was received from his wife, who in turn received it from her mother. An affidavit from the mother-in-law was submitted, but the AO and CIT(A) found this claim inconsistent and unsupported by documentary evidence. The CIT(A) noted that no affidavit or plea regarding the cash receipt was presented during the assessment, and the affidavit was not admitted as evidence. Even if considered, the affidavit alone was insufficient without corroborative evidence such as bank statements. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, thereby confirming the AO’s order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order. The addition of Rs. 17,84,920/- as peak credit was upheld, the loss from share broking was disallowed due to late filing of the return, and the claim of Rs. 16,00,000/- received from the wife lacked credibility and supporting evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order pronounced in open court on April 23, 2019.

---