TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfluenced by the quantum proceedings, hence not in accordance with the ratio of CIT vs. Bimal Kumar Damani (2003) 261 ITR 87 (Calcutta)?" 3. In ITA No.289 of 2016 filed by the appellant-assessee, the following substantial questions of law have been claimed:- i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, while examining Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the Stridhan is the absolute ownership, control and possession of the lady inspite of being placed in the custody of husband resultantly not chargeable to tax under section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370 and Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397? ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the inference of facts can be utilized for presuming the chargeability of income under section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while the exchange of dasti money amongst the relatives has been proved beyond doubt qua the source, creditworthiness and the veracity of the transaction?" 4. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No.288 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing officer observed that it was not believable that such heavy amount was kept at home by the wife of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained and made addition under Section 68 of the Act. On appeal before the CIT(A), it was pleaded by the assessee that he was married about 35 years ago and saving of Rs. 3,30,000/- out of Stridhan by his wife was on account of receipts on social and other customary occasions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that source of the amount kept by the wife of the appellant was not supported by any evidence. It was categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the burden was on the assessee to prove the source of the amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-. The assessee explained that this amount was received from his wife and filed her affidavit in which she had merely stated that Rs. 10,000/- had been saved annually out of the money given by her husband but the counsel for the assessee pleaded before the CIT(A) that such amount was accumulated by wife of the assessee on different occasions by way of gift etc. from their parent and in-laws side at different regular occasions. Thus, the affidavit was held to be cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the affidavit of wife of the assessee is not supported by any evidence or material on record. Thus, assessee failed to prove credit worthiness of his wife and the genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The authorities below were, therefore, justified in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 3,30,000/-. This ground of appeal of assessee is accordingly dismissed." 7. With regard to the credit in the name of Shri Gurdiwan Singh in the sum for Rs. 10 lacs, his statement was recorded in which he denied to have given any loan to the assessee. He stated that he had not taken any loan or given any loan for the last six years. He had given about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to his brother and sister as loan. Thus, the assessee failed to prove the source of the credit and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Further, the addition of Rs. 29,000/- shown to have been given by Shri Iqbal Singh, in the absence of any evidence was upheld by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "15. As regards the credit in the name of Shri Gurdiwan Singh in a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, his statement was recorded at assessment stage by Assessing office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the contention of the assessee was probable that they might not have maintained any bank account and thus had kept cash with them after selling their properties. Thus, the addition of Rs. 25,75,000/- was deleted. 9. With regard to the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit, the assessee explained that the said amount was advanced by Sh. Pritam Singh against mortgage of house, which did not relate to any business transaction. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce Sh. Pritam Singh to verify genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Sh. Pritam Singh in his statement stated that he had kept the money at his house after selling the land because he was not having any bank account. He had sold the land to Sh. Darshan Singh and thereafter he had not purchased any land. Thus, the assessee was able to prove identity of Sh. Pritam Singh, his credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the Tribunal did not find any justification for the authorities below to make and sustain the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Thus, the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was deleted. 10. The Assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 271(1) (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o explain the addition to the capital account. On the addition for Rs. 10 lacs in respect of amount received from Shri Gurdiwan Singh, he has denied to have given any loan to the assessee. In his statement recorded under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, further no evidence has been filed in respect of amount received of Rs. 29,000/- from Shri Iqbal Singh. No explanation has been given at ay stage to explain genuineness on receipt of these amounts. Therefore, the assessee failed to substantiate any explanation filed before authorities below. The assessee has thus, filed inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract levy of the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer because appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals). On this issue, we have also confirmed the additions in the absence of any evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is called for in the matter and authorities below are justified in levying penalty on these three additions. These grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. The Assessing officer shall re-compute the levy of penalty as is directed above." 11. The findings reco....