TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that the assessee proved the source of deposit contrary to the law laid down in (2007) 292 ITR 682 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Chinnathamban)? 2. This is a case of block assessment covering the period 01.04.1996 to 21.02.2003. It is seen from the facts narrated in the orders of the authority below that a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of one Shri.Singanamala Ramesh Babu and his father Shri.S.Sathya Ramamurthy on 21.02.2003. One of the documents seized during the search indicate that there was a sale of immovable property by one Kanakarathnamma, W/o.Shri S.Sathya Ramamurthy. The said S.Kanakarathnamma sold 1/3rd share of her immovable pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Mrs.Mallika, the assessee or not. Thus, the claim of the assessee as regards Rs.5,70,095/- stood unproved and that the assessee had not taken any steps to produce Sri Lalith Kumar, who was incharge of Giri Auctioneers nor any evidence let in regarding the genuineness of the auction said to have been conducted. 6. The Assessing Officer further pointed out that contrary to her assertion that she had given a sum of Rupees six lakhs by way of sale of jewellery, her son in law Senthil Kumar stated that the assessee had given her jewellery to her daughter worth Rs.7 lakhs just before the registration, which were sold by him. The assessee, however, submitted that as on 31.03.1996, she was in possession of jewellery worth about Rs.2,86,395/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... friends and employees of J.Senthil Kumar. A reading of the details given shows that the assessee had also made cash payment to J.Senthil Kumar's account by Pay Order Nos. 421800, 421799, 846154 all dated 13.03.2002 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- each, the first two from Karur Vysya Bank and other one from State Bank. 9. In response to the notice, the said Senthil Kumar appeared before the Officer and he was asked to explain the various credit entries. On a question specifically put to Senthil Kumar, whether he had repaid the loan, he had answered that he had not repaid the loan. In order to verify the financial transaction nature, notice was also issued to daughter of the assessee, who, however did not respond to the notice, except to say throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his accounts. Since Senthil Kumar was an assessee and also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the credits in his bank account had been offered before his Assessing Officer, nothing further was required to make addition at the hands of the assessee. Thus, the appeal filed by the assesseee was allowed on this aspect. 13. As regards the possession of jewellery and the sale of it, the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition holding that the assessee had produced a copy of the advertisement of the auction and receipts of the auction, thus, the assessment at the hands of the assessee for Rs.22 lakhs was set aside. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before this Court. 14. Although t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t given by the auctioneer, by itself, would not prove substantially the claim of the assessee as regards the sale of her jewellery. 16. As regards a sum of Rs.15 lakhs said to have been given by her son-in-law directly to the vendor of the assessee is concerned, there could be no inhibition on a person holding finance giving money to the vendor on behalf of the purchaser, yet, the details given in the assessment order, particularly, as regards the transactions of the son-in-law raised serious doubt on payment of the said amounts by the said Senthil Kumar on behalf of the Mallika for purchase of the property. The reason being that on 13.03.2002, the assessee herein viz., R.Mallika is stated to have deposited Rs.45,000/- each by way of three....