TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-2000. According to the ld.representative, in the year 1996, the taxpayer has purchased 83 cents of land for Rs.5 lakhs and constructed a building by investing Rs.3,61,915. In the cash flow statement, the taxpayer has shown the opening cash balance as on 01-04- 2000 at Rs.2 lakhs. However, the assessing officer disallowed Rs.1 lakh on the ground that the taxpayer has not filed any evidence. According to the ld.representative, the taxpayer is in the business from 1992 onwards. Therefore, the opening cash balance as discussed in the cash flow statement before the assessing officer has to be accepted. 4. On the contrary, Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the taxpayer has no material to support the claim of Rs.2 lakhs as opening cash balance. Therefore, the assessing officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the taxpayer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the taxpayer was engaged himself in the business of purchase and sale of scrap from the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the taxpayer has purchased land admeasuring 83 cents for Rs.5 lakhs and constructed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he was living separately from the family, then there may be expenditure for household. The assessing officer is expecting the taxpayer to prove that he is living in a joint family. It is not known how a person could prove that he is living in a joint family by means of documentary evidence. These are all matters which need to be factually verified, if at all the assessing officer has any doubt about the claim of the taxpayer. The very fact that the taxpayer has not incurred any expenditure separately shows that he was under the care and custody of someone else. When the taxpayer claims that he was under the care and custody of parents and brothers, it is natural that in a joint family system the elder brother or parents would incur the expenditure. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that addition of Rs.50,000 towards household expenses may not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authority are set aside and the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.50,000. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No.336/Coch/2010 the first ground of appeal is with regard to disallowance of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....800 towards the investment made in the business of M/s A One Bottles. The addition of Rs.14,800 is deleted. 10. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of Rs.83,209 towards household expenses. The contention of the ld. representative for the taxpayer is that the taxpayer was living with his parents and brothers in a joint family system. This contention was accepted by this Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02. When the taxpayer was living with his parent and the entire family expenses were taken care of by his elder brothers and parents in the joint family, there is no need for making any further addition. The matter would have been different had the taxpayer was living separately. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that there is no necessity to make addition on account of household expenses. 11. Now coming to assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.337/Coch/2010 the first ground of appeal is with regard to addition of Rs.6,10,440. 12. The ld.representative for the taxpayer submitted that the assessing officer disallowed Rs.6,10,440 out of the total amount brought in the cash flow statement of Rs. 6,95,289. The ld.representative further submitted that the total draw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anil Kumar, the ld.DR also. 16. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the taxpayer has received Rs.4 lakhs by way of two cheques and the same was credited in the bank account. No doubt, merely because the amounts are received through banking channel it will not prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. The taxpayer has to discharge his burden by producing the necessary material in support of the creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the assessing officer has to examine the creditworthiness of the creditor, after considering the material that is available with the taxpayer. In fact, the attempt made by the taxpayer to file the material before the C.I.T.(A) was rejected which is apparent from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A). When the taxpayer made an attempt to produce some material to support the claim of receipt of loan from Shri Shaju, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the lower authorities ought to have examined the same in accordance with law. Since such exercise was not done and the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has refused to accept the additional evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tricted the same to Rs.60,000 only and the balance amount of Rs.1,43,783 was added as unexplained income. We heard the ld.DR also. 21. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. From the orders of the lower authorities it appears that the land holdings and the nature of the crop cultivated was not examined. The assessing officer simply relied upon the report said to be filed by the inspector. The report of the inspector was not furnished to the taxpayer. Moreover, the assessment order under consideration is 2005-06 and the Inspector did not visit the place during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The visit was apparently subsequent to the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it needs to be found out whether the taxpayer has cultivated the land during the financial year under consideration or not as these facts are not emerging from their orders. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the issue needs reconsideration. Accordingly, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrect or not. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs P Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) the ld.representative submitted that in the case before the Apex Court, the Income-tax Officer examined the matter and ultimately found that the transaction was not genuine and one person has sent the money in three different names from foreign country. Therefore, it is for the assessing officer to verify the confirmation letter and examine whether such money was borrowed from the person or not. Therefore, without such examination the application of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P Mohankala (supra) may not be justified. We heard, Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR also. 25. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. No doubt, the taxpayer claimed that he has received Rs.8 lakhs from two persons. Admittedly, the taxpayer has filed confirmations from the respective creditors. Once the confirmation letters were filed from the respective creditor, which contains all the details, it is for the assessing officer to examine further and find out whether the details availa....