TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were found. After repeated notices, the assessee filed a return in HUF status and did not choose to file return in his individual status. The assessment was completed under section 158BC read with section 144, in the hands of the assessee (individual) and a separate assessment was made regarding HUF including investment in bank deposits and cash. The assessee had filed return of income in the status of HUF i.e., on August 5, 1996 declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 1,50,764 for the previous years 1991-92 to 1994-95 comprised in the block period furnishing the details of source of investment made by him in bank deposits and for cash found in his residence. 3. The explanation of the assessee for the source of deposits was that it was out of a sale advance of Rs. 14 lakhs received from one K. Kannappan towards the sale of a shop located in Cumbum Town, jointly owned by the respondent-assessee and his brother, for a total consideration of Rs. 23 lakhs, as per sale agreement dated November 20, 2004. The Assessing Officer, held that the agreement seized during the search is not a genuine one and treated Rs. 13.35 lakhs as unexplained investment of the assessee and treated as undisclosed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. During the course of search, Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates of the Central Bank of India at Ellis Nagar Branch, Madurai, to the tune of Rs. 13.35 lakhs in the name of assessee and his son Arunkumar, were found. It is the case of the assessee that the source of the said amount was the sale advance amount of Rs. 14 lakhs received from one K. Kannappan of Cumbum Town towards the sale of a shop premises, jointly owned by him and his younger brother, by name, K. Chandrasekaran, for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs, as per the sale agreement dated November 20, 1994, which was also seized during the search. The Assessing Officer rightly suspected the genuineness of the said agreement. The signature of Kannappan found in the sale agreement and signatures found in the sworn statement filed before the authorities were different and in fact, he had admitted that he did not affix his signature in the agreement as the agreement was not presented to him for his signature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly found that the agreement was not legally valid as it was not signed by both parties. Moreover, the property, which was sought to be sold was a property measuring about ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or surplus income for purchase of the property. Further, admittedly, the said Kannappan did not affix his signature in the agreement. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has discharged his burden of proving the source, nature and character of the credit is erroneous. The materials available would only make it very clear that the transaction in question was not genuine and the finding of the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 13.35 lakhs is undisclosed income is sustainable. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the finding of the Assessing Officer that Rs. 13.35 lakhs is undisclosed income is restored. 10. As far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the sum of Rs. 20.66 lakhs in cash, was seized during the raid on November 24, 1995 and the amount was found in different covers with certain notings on them showing contract payment, percentage of premium reduced thereon, etc. The contention of the assessee was that the said amount was out of his agricultural income and loans received from brothers and close relatives. "10. In the statement filed along with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....num. However, the Assessing Officer, taking into consideration, the fact that no books of account were maintained by the trust and the trust is also not registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act and non-production of any sale bills of agricultural produce and on personal visit, rightly found that the agricultural income from the trust lands would not be more than Rs. 1 lakh, after meeting the expenses of cultivation. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs, said to be agricultural income derived from trust lands, amounts to undisclosed income. 11. Moreover, the sum of Rs. 20,66,637 was found kept in different covers with certain notings. Considering the status of the assessee as a Deputy Superintending Engineer in National Highways Department, Madurai, it was found that this would amount to undisclosed income as the assessee is a salaried employee of the State Government and his take home salary was Rs. 8,125 as per his own statement dated November 25, 1995. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that no proper explanation had been given by the assessee by producing documents. Even with regard to the bank receipts for Rs. 50,000, Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 20,000 standing in the name o....