TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in dyes and filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2008-09 on 18.9.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 2,22,101/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20/08/2009 was issued and served upon the assessee. During assessment proceedings it was observed by the Assessing Officer that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 11,85,000/- in his bank account held with Bhagyodaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.. On being asked about the source of cash deposit by Assessing Officer, assessee replied that the source of cash deposit is from the opening cash balance held by the assessee as well as cash received from relatives for doing share trading business. In this reply assessee further submitted that this share trading business was carried on in form of Association of Persons (AOP) of assessee, his wife, brother in law and their wives and this business was operated through regular business account of the assessee. 3. After examining the reply given by the assessee, Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive loans are less than Rs. 20,000/-. The denomination of these loans are intentionally kept less than Rs. 20.000/-, just to evade provisions of section 269 SS of the IT. Act However, in case of two loans from Dhanesh M.Patel and Vishakaben M. Patel, there are violation of provisions of section 269 SS of the IT. Act. Perusal of confirmations reveals that these confirmations are having same format and font. These are apparently printed from the same printer. All these confirmations were issued on the same date i.e. 1-4-2008.This way, these confirmations were engineered and these are self serving documents. Some of these persons are assessed to tax. However, this fact change complexion of entire proceedings. In view of this, I hold that these confirmations are self serving documents and the same are hereby rejected. 4.5 The appellant has also taken an alternate plea that peak in his bank account should be taken as undisclosed income. As discussed above, the A.O. had made an addition of Rs. 6,09,500/--after giving benefit of cash withdrawal from the S.B. account of the appellant of Rs. 6,75,500/-. It is a matter of record that cash of Rs. 11,85,000/-- was deposited in his acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 68 of the Act and also not believing the claim of assessee that Rs. 6,09,500/- was cash collected from relatives as members of AOP/BOI of the share trading business. 10. First we take up the ground that whether there actually existed an AOP. From going through the records carefully we find that there was no agreement between the members to form an Association of Persons, there was no separate PAN taken in the name of AOP and all the cash received from the relatives were forming part of the financial statements disclosed by the assessee in his return of income filed in the capacity as an individual. Therefore, in the eyes of law there is no evidence which the assessee has shown about the legal existence of an AOP. Income-tax Dpartment can assess an entity as an AOP only if it has a separate PAN and there is no mechanism in the statute for including the income of an AOP along with return of an individual. Therefore, we do not find any basis in the submission of ld. AR that there actually existed any AOP and therefore, the cash received by the assessee from his relatives cannot be treated as a contribution by the relatives towards the share trading business under a common AOP. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted necessary documents and evidences to prove the identity and genuineness of the cash received from following six parties which are named as under :- 1. Bhavesh M. Patel 16,100/- 2 Reshma D. Patel 18,500/- 3. Binal B. Patel 15,000/- 4. Labhuben M. Patel 15,000/- 5. Kanchanben K. Patel 16,000/- 6. Pankaj r. Patel 17,500/- Total 98,100/- As assessee has been able to prove the identity and genuineness of the cash loan from above six parties at Rs. 98,100/- and further total amount received from each person is less than Rs. 20,000/- then there is no contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and we accordingly accept the submissions of ld. AR about the source of cash at Rs. 98,100/- from above said six parties. 14. Now we take up the issue about cash loan received at Rs. 3,20,000/- from following three parties :- 1. Vishakhaben M. Patel 1,82,000/- 2. Dhanesh M. Patel 55,000/- 3. Krushnakant N. Patel 83,000/- Total 3,20,000/- From perusal of record and the observations of the lower authorities, we find that assessee has not ....