TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which were not declared to the department. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 24/01/2012 by declaring income of Rs. 8,05,000/- under other sources. The Assessing Officer has noted that the second return was not valid one, in terms of section 139(4) of the Act and did not consider the same. The Assessing Officer has made two additions one is in respect of unexplained investment under section 69 of Rs. 39,74,113/- and second one is unexplained credits under section 68 of Rs. 2,96,500/-. 3. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee in respect of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act of Rs. 39,74,113/-, the Assessing Officer has noted as under:- "4.2 As per the details filed with original return, the assesseeappellant had shown fixed deposits of Rs. 11,59,660/-, capital of Rs. 21,75,269/- as on 31.03.2010, and the total income admitted was Rs. 5,82,454/-. In the second return the assessee has shown fixed deposits of Rs. 56,52,773/-, capital of Rs. 65,83,634/- and the total income admitted under the head 'other sources' was Rs. 10,91,015/-. It was represented that the books of account wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I.T. Act, 1961 and made the impugned addition of Rs. 39,74,113/-." 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed an additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of confirmation letters from Shri Appa Rao and L. Dileshwara Rao. 5. So far as Shri Appa Rao is concerned, the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation why this confirmation was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) rejected to admit the additional evidence in respect of Shri Appa Rao. So far as Shri L. Dileshwara Rao is concerned, it was submitted before ld. CIT(A) that Shri L. Dileshwara Rao's son was met with an accident, therefore, assessee was not collected and filed confirmation letter before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence in respect of Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that Shri L. Dileshwara Rao is relative to the assessee and has stated that he has given Rs. 30 lakhs in cash as advance for purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revised return is not valid. Hence the AG is justified in examining the claim with reference to the original books of accounts, and as the impugned investments were not recorded in the regular books of account, the AG is justified in assessing such investments not recorded in the original books of account as unexplained investment u/s.69. 4.13 The AR also raised the plea that in regard to addition made of unexplained investment u/s.69, the assessee is not required to prove the creditworthiness of the person and the genuineness of the transaction, and that it would be sufficient to furnish the details of the parties who had advanced the amounts to make the impugned investment. 4.14 I have considered the plea and do not find any merit in such contention. It is to be noted that the assessee had raised the claim that it had received advance to the tune of Rs. 37 lakhs on sale of some of its properties and which amount was utilized to make the impugned investments in FDs. Therefore, it is the burden of the assessee to prove such claim satisfactorily. It is the fundamental principle of law of evidence that a person who makes the claim has to prove such claim. Further, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As regards the purported transaction with Dilleswara Rao, the assessee could not give any evidence during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also did not give any details relating to the transaction except claiming advance was received towards purchase of property. Only during the appellate proceedings, confirmation letter of Dilleswara Rao was filed as additional evidence. The assessee's case was that it had received advance of Rs. 30 lakhs from Dilleswara Rao towards sale of its property and such amount was credited in its capital account. The entries in the capital account show receipt of cash of Rs. 10,10,000/- and cheque transfer of Rs. 19,90,000/- which were said to represent the amounts received from Dilleswara Rao. It is seen from the assessee's account with Shalantri Branch, there were cheque deposits of Rs. 9,95,000/- on 18,03.2010 and Rs. 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010, aggregating to Rs. 19,90,000/-. On the other hand, the said Dilleshwara Rao in his sworn deposition had stated that he had given cash of Rs. 10 lakhs each in three installments to the assessee. Thus the assessee has not satisfactorily explained the source for the above cheque deposits of Rs. 19,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was given regarding this amount. It is to be noted that the AO had made addition partly of Rs. 5,08,501/- towards additional income offered in the 2nd return and partly of Rs. 2,74,113/- towards unexplained investment. During the appeal proceedings also the assessee had not given any details relating to this transaction. Hence the AO is directed to consider the amount of Rs. 7,83,113/- as unexplained investment instead of considering part amount towards additional income offered in return and part amount towards unexplained investment. This ground of appeal is accordingly." 7. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed confirmation letters and, therefore, it is not an obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the same and also submitted that all the transactions are genuine transactions, therefore, the assessee has discharged burden casted upon him, but ld. CIT(A) is not justified in conforming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that the assessee has only filed confirmation letters at the appellate stage and the assessee has fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer has disbelieved the explanation given by the assessee. By considering the discrepancies in the bank deposits, it was found that the entries in the capital account show receipt of cash of Rs. 10,10,000/- and cheque transfer of Rs. 19,90,000/- which were said to represent the amounts received from Shri Dilleswara Rao. It is seen from the assessee's account with Shalantri Branch, there were cheque deposits of Rs. 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010 and Rs. 9,95,000/- on 18.03.2010, aggregating to Rs. 19,90,000/-. On the other hand, Shri L. Dileshwara Rao has explained before the Assessing Officer that he has given Rs. 30 lakhs in three installments i.e. Rs. 10 lakh each. When Assessing Officer asked the assessee in respect of amount received from Shri L.Dileshwara Rao and also bank entries, the assessee has failed to explain the same before the Assessing Officer, even before the ld.CIT(A) and even before us also no explanation is given. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee failed to discharge the burden casted upon him that he has received Rs. 30 lakhs from Shri L.Dileshwar....