TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee's business premises on May 11 & 12, 2007, which reflected sums (aggregating to Rs.18.44 lacs) received from one, Mr. Pervez, a partner in the assessee-firm, for being used as for a number of persons, including the assessee. The assessee being unable to explain nature and source of these funds; the same was added to its total income, which stood confirmed by the first appellate authority. Before the Tribunal, the assessee's case was that even admitting the truth of the document found, no addition could at all be made on the basis of said document. This is as document itself exhibits the source of the funds as from Mr. Pervez. Now, the Revenue cannot, placing reliance on a document recovered require the assessee to explain the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the decision in case of Chuharmal vs. CIT [1998] 172 ITR 250 (SC). The assessee's explanation of Mr. Pervez as the source of the funds had to be given due credence; the Revenue having not proved the document to be untrue; rather, proceeding only on the basis of the said document. That Mr. Pervez had not disclosed or explained the said sums was found to be irrelevant. However, obligation on the assessee is to explain both the nature and the source of the funds. It, however, had not uttered a word on the nature of the funds. The non-satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) with the assessee's explanation was thus held as legally valid, and the addition confirmed in principle. Further, as specified amounts as paid by Mr. Pervez per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. 3.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the whole issue was argued before the tribunal, as apparent from a reading of the impugned order, as to whether the assessee has, in the given facts and circumstances, been able to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the funds as reflected in the document/s found from its premises, failing which the same would stand to be deemed as the assessee's unexplained income for the relevant year. Whether the said explanation stood attracted under section 68 or s. 69 or s. 69A, all of which are in fact para materia, was never the subject matter of dispute and, thus, not subject to any argument by the parties before the tribunal nor in fact before the authorities below. 3.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by him, or his power to do so, as it does before us. Quite simply for the reason, as afore-stated, that the receipt of money from Mr. Pervez as reflected was required to be satisfactorily explained; the assessee's books not disclosing the same, was the given position before the first appellate authority in view of section 292C of the Act. During the hearing before the tribunal, again, no specific issue in this respect was raised (refer para 3.3 of this order). The question before it, as also pleaded by the ld. DR before us, was as to whether the receipt of money as reflected in the document stands satisfactorily explained by the assessee or not, as in its absence the same would be deemed as the assessee's income. The assessee claimed it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l's answer to the assessee's said plea. The assessee is aggrieved, even as going by assessee's own explanation the money has been received in cash (which fact the tribunal found the assessee to have failed to rebut), and that section 69A speaks of money, as against section 69, which is qua investment and, further, despite the tribunal making it abundantly clear, that the provisions are para materia, drawing support from the decision in the case of CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel [2005] 147 Taxman 148 (All). A decision is rendered on the basis of the respective cases as advanced by the parties, given the material on record. The question of the applicability of any particular section was never an issue, being inconsequential in view of the assessee'....