TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was heard ex-parte and ld.CIT/DR was heard at length. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.3.1992 for assessment year 1999- 2000, declaring total income of Rs. 22,000/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s T.S.Subramaniya Chettiar and Sons, Panrutti, on 17.9.1992. During this survey it was found that the assessee had availed loans from the above firm. Consequent upon this survey proceedings, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 23.9.1993 at a total income of Rs. 13,03,640/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted a portion of the addition an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 5 relates to deletion of the loan amount taken from individual account of Shri Mayakrishnan, who is the Kartha of the Assessee-HUF. This credit was introduced in the earlier assessment year and was not related to this assessment year. This fact was verified from the copy of trial balance of the earlier year and the claim of the assessee was found to be correct. In this regard also, no material argument was advanced from the side of the Revenue. Therefore, we cannot disturb this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and hence, this ground also stands dismissed. 7. During the course of survey, it was found that M/s T.S.Subramania Chettiar and Sons had advanced huge amounts outside the books of account, to various persons, including the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noticed that Smt. Neelavathy and Shri Mayakrishnan-HUF were assessed to income tax, but sons were not assessed. Shri M.Jayasankar was an agriculturist and Shri M.Ravichandran was only an MBBS student. Smt.Neelavathy and her sons did not have any independent sources of their income, to make such huge investments. The sources for the above investment were not fully explained by the assessee. To explain the sources of investments made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 4,49,153/-, the assessee enclosed a trial balance as on 31.3.1990. The assessee claimed loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- in the credit side of the trial balance. The assessee filed confirmatory letters from two persons namely, Shri G.Rajagopal and Shri Deivasigamani. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n amount For investment in the name of 2-8-1989 Rs. 10,000 M. Ravichandran 25-11-1989 Rs. 60,000 " 28-11-1989 Rs. 1,00,000 " 1-8-1989 Rs. 40,000 M.Jayasankar 21-11-1989 Rs. 60,000 " 22-11-1989 Rs. 1,50,000 " 20-11-1989 Rs. 50,000 M.Neelavathy Ammal 22-11-1989 Rs. 50,000 " 11. From the records it was noticed that there are landholdings in the name of Shri M.Ravichandran, as detailed below: Date of purchase Amount Property details 2.9.1978 11,200 1 acre 50 cents of lands at Melmampattuvillage 27.4.1983 694 11.1/4 cents of lands at Melmampattu village 17.11.1984 8,800 39 cents of lands at Chinnapurangani village 3.6.1986 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne/independent income and she did not have any knowledge about her address given in the Incometax returns. nature of business disclosed in the Incometax returns, location of properties. etc 7. The CIT(A) has upheld the addition of gift from the mother of Neelvathi Ammal appearing in the accounts of Smt. Neelavathi Ammai, for assessment in the hands of the assessee-HUF whereas he held that she had independent source of income and deleted the addition made towards unexplained loan in the name of S.Subramania Chettiar and Sons amounting to Rs. 1,08,000/- stated as source for the investment mad by Smt. Neelavathi, which is contradictory. 8. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of excess agricultural income of Rs. 37,150....