TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal had framed the following questions for consideration: i) Whether the CIT (Appeals) is justified in directing the AO to assess the income in the individual capacity as against HUF status? ii) Whether the CIT (Appeals) is justified in upholding the impugned addition of Rs.4,25,000/- by applying the provisions of section 69 of the Act? iii) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have given benefit of deduction u/s. 80C of the Act for the investments made in ICICI and LIC to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. All the three questions were answered by the Tribunal against the assessee and dismissed the appeal. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following two substantial questions of law: 1. Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... No.21842). 4. The assessee explained that his family was having money lending business and after the death of his father, he continued the said business of money lending under HUF status. It was further explained that the transactions in the savings bank account were in respect of the money lending business of HUF. The Assessing Officer, after scrutiny of the assessment, held that the books of accounts maintained by the assessee were fabricated and accordingly rejected the same. It was further held that in the impugned savings bank account in Canara Bank, a sum of Rs.7,20,761/- being the peak credit was unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. Out of the said amount, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the source to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was also claimed that the assessee filed returns in HUF status in Form 2-C for the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to paragraph 5 of the said order to contend that on 27.12.2007, the assessee filed an application before the Additional Commissioner seeking direction under Section 144-A of the Act. The Additional Commissioner after hearing the assessee's representative, had issued directions under Section 144-A dated 31.12.2007 to assess Rs.4,25,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee on protective basis, as the information about the Canara Bank Account was received in the name of the assessee in his individual status. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....city assessee is not having any money lending business and no returns are filed with Registrar. Further, appellant could not prove with help of primary documents transactions of money lending business as in case of Sri Bedsur discussed above. Affidavit without having any support of evidences is not acceptable thus in individual capacity though money lending business is done but it is without knowledge of concerned authority. Therefore, it is illegal, in view of same both in individual and in HUF capacity appellant could not explain peak transactions in Canara Bank, Hubli of Rs.4,25,000/- after detailed discussion in assessment orders of appellant both in individual and HUF capacity. 5.2 Question is of assessability of unexplained peak cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice that the 'HUF' had filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and in the said appeal, the CIT (Appeals) had categorically held in para 5.1 as follows: "5.1 In the absence of the valid HUF in existence and in absence of specific finding by AO, assessing income in hands of HUF is not held as legal, information received in respect of cash transaction also does not mention specifically in case of HUF, therefore, any addition in hands appellant in HUF capacity will be legally not valid..........." 15. Had the HUF been aggrieved by the above said finding of the CIT (Appeals), the HUF ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal. Having failed to file appeal before the Tribunal, the a....