TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made u/s.68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee maintained a saving bank account No.501010100010061 with Axis Bank, Jajpur Road Branch jointly with his wife Smt. Jasobanti Sahoo, who is a house wife. On verification of bank account, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in cash on 21.1.2010. The assessee was required to explain the source of said deposits. The assessee submitted that Rs. 20 lakhs was a cash deposit made by his wife Smt. Jasobanti Sahoo as the account was a joint account and the said amount was a cash advance received from her relatives. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in the instant case, the assessee has not been able to convincingly establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of the persons giving cash advance. Thus, the onus of explaining the source of cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- could not be discharged by the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, Smt. Jasobanti Sahoo did not have any independent income source and, therefore, the AO deemed it proper to treat the above amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under consideration u/s.68 of the Act and, accordingly, added the same to the total income of the assesse. 4. On appeal, ld CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, inter alia, by observing as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO in the absence of evidences. The appellant submitted that each of the 20 persons have given loan to his wife cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- each out of their agricultural surplus income and they do not have any bank account. It is highly improbable that the persons who do not have PAN, do not have bank account could be having enough agricultural surplus to give cash loan to the wife of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the wife of the appellant deposited all the cash together on one day i.e. on 22.01.2010. The events of the case defy any standard of human probability. In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT v. D.P.More 82 ITR 540 (SC) it was decided by the Apex Court that "the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation, the assessee furnished affidavits of those 20 persons before the Assessing Officer, wherein, each of them admitted the fact of advancing Rs. 1 lakh to the wife of the assessee. 6. Further, each of the said 20 persons appeared before the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the summons issued u/s.131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded the statement of each of the 20 persons. In their deposition before the Assessing officer, each of the 20 persons duly affirmed the fact of advancing of Rs. One lakh by them to the wife of the assessee.. He produced the evidences of owning agricultural land by them from which agricultural income was earned by them out of which, the advance was given by them. 7. `The assessee also explained that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it but also in the statement given before the Assessing officer and the creditors also produced before the Assessing Officer the evidence of owning agricultural land by them wherefrom agricultural income was earned by them out of which money in question was advanced. In the above circumstances, in my considered view, the initial onus which was upon the assessee under the law was duly discharged. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has brought no material on record to show that the statements given by the said 20 persons were incorrect or not possible. The Assessing Officer has stated in the order of assessment that the genuineness of the transaction has not been proved by the assessee. However, I find that in support of the genuineness of the....