https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767730 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767730 Additions u/s 69A - unexplained income - HELD THAT:- We observe that the assessee had submitted cash book for various years under consideration, on the basis of cash withdrawn / deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts held with various banks. AO has not pointed out any source of income of the assessee, apart from salary income and there is no allegation that the assessee had earned any unexplained income outside the books of accounts. Further, there is no allegation by the Department that the cash so withdrawn by the assessee from his bank accounts, was not available with the assessee for being re-deposited in his bank account. It is a well settled principle that if the AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee has been used elsewhere and that the same were not available with the assessee for re-depositing, then it has to be presumed that the subsequent re-deposit in the bank accounts were sourced out of earlier withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account. Accordingly, since opening cash balance was sourced out of withdrawals made from the assessee s bank accounts and since there was no specific allegation that the amount was not available with the assessee for re-depositing, the opening cash balance cannot be added as income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Addition u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- Since there is no specific allegation that the assessee had utilized the cash withdrawals elsewhere, in our view, there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 69A of the Act. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that no specific observations were made by the AO while making the addition that the assessee had utilized the cash withdrawals elsewhere and further, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to why the cash withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account was not available with the assessee for re-deposit. Accordingly, keeping in view the assessee s facts, the addition is directed to be deleted. Addition received by the assessee from sale of cars - HELD THAT:- Sale of Renault Fluence Car and Santro Cars are concerned, complete details with regards to the purchaser were furnished by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings and the only reason why the addition was made in the hands of the assessee was only on the ground that the purchaser failed to respond to notices issued by the Income Tax Department. No other adverse inference / observations was made by the AO/ CIT(A) while confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, looking into the assessee s set of facts, in our considered view addition on sale of Fluence car and Santro car are liable to be deleted. Sale of Mercedes Benz car - Assessee has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings made by the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) while confirming the addition. The only submission given by the assessee is that the car was sold through an agent. However, apart from this statement, no this has been brought on record to controvert the findings of the AO and the assessee in our view, has not been able to establish the genuineness of the sale of Mercedes Car. Therefore, on going through the records of the assessee s case, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Accordingly, addition on sale of Mercedes Benz car is liable to be sustained in the hands of the assessee. Addition received from Late Prabhatsinhji Thakor as contribution for joint venture u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Joint Development deal with Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore did not materialize and the land development in terms of the MOU never took place. Further, we were also informed that the money so statedly received by the assessee from Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore was also never returned back by the assessee. Although, the confirmation of Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore was placed on record, however, in our considered view, this itself does not prove the genuineness of the transaction and nor does it prove the creditworthiness of the party. Shri Prabhatsingh Thakore had not filed return of income for the impugned year under consideration and nothing has been brought on record to show the creditworthiness of Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore to advance such substantial amount to the assessee. Bogus sale of shares u/s 69A - assessee submitted that all evidences regarding transaction of shares viz. Shares transfer Form, audited accounts of the purchaser company etc. were furnished, and that there is no doubt that such sale of shares were made by the assessee, in lieu of cash - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to furnish the creditworthiness of M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. and there is nothing on record to show that M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. paid an amount of Rs. 49,99,990/- to the assessee in cash. Assessee despite being given several opportunities, did not produce cash book of the purchaser company to show separate cash payment. Further, in absence of cash book of M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. it is also not possible to ascertain whether the purchaser company had availability of cash at the relevant time to make such share purchase in cash, as stated by the assessee. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact of assessee s case, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530