2015 (4) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,55,950/- and alleged receipt of sale of shares both in cash was deleted. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal. It is not in dispute that both the sums of Rs. 10,61,834.44 and the sum of Rs. 21,55,950/- was found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee maintained for the previous year. It is also not in dispute that the explanation offered by him with regard to both the aforesaid receipts in the opinion of the Assessing Officer was not satisfactory and, therefore, he proceeded to charge the aforesaid amounts to income-tax treating the same as the income of the assessee. The learned Tribunal held: "Once the assessee has discharged his primary onus of producing the details i.e. sale of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was taken. Even if thereafter no such document is produced, in that event, the Assessing Officer has to record his conclusion that the explanation without the documentary evidence is not satisfactory. From the orders that have been placed before us, it does not appear that it can be conclusively determined that no such explanation at all ever submitted." He also drew our attention to a judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT V. Jaora Flour and Foods P. Ltd. reported in [2012] 344 ITR 294 (MP). It was held that the amount of sum of Rs. 10 lakh found during the course of survey was not an unaccounted money. The judgements cited by Mr. Bagaria, according to us, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roving the transaction of share. Similarly he could have applied for issuance of summons for examining the debtor who had allegedly repaid the money in cash and it could have been said that the assessee did whatever was within his power, but the assessee did not discharge his burden. Law requires the assessee to satisfy the Assessing Officer. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer cannot be of a higher or lower level than the satisfaction of any person of ordinary prudence. If the assessee has taken steps to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence then he can be said to have discharged his burden, but if the assessee consciously chose not to do what was within his power then he could be said not to have discharged his burden. The judgement in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agreeing with the views of the Assessing Officer opined as follows: " I have perused the assessment order and considered the submission of the appellant. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant could produce no evidence in support of his contentions. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant. There is no material on record to show that cash of Rs. 21,55,950/- was received on sale of share. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to show that cash of Rs. 10,61,834/- was received from M/s. M L Dhingra & Associates. Confirmation from the said party was not filed before the AO. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant could bring no material or evidence on record in support of his contenti....