TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirming addition of Rs. 15,49,420/- without appreciating the cash-in-hand available as on 01.04.2010 to the extent of Rs. 10,94,260/- and without doubting the veracity of cash book even by the Departmental Representative after granting partial relief of Rs. 5 lakh without appreciating the Rs.Peak Theory' duly accepted by this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ved Parkash vs. CIT in ITA 235 of 2015 decided on 02.07.2015 wherein the peak being Rs. 8,71,131/- thus the addition having been based on suspicion without any adverse evidence against the appellant and conversely without appreciating cogent and plausible reasons with evidence filed therein, which finding is perverse? (ii) Whether the ITAT is justified in confirming....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.11.2015. 6. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal vide its order dated 06.03.2017. The addition made of Rs. 20,49,420/- was reduced by Rs. 5 lakh. The other addition made of Rs. 14,40,000/- was affirmed. Re : Question No. (i) 7. Question No. (i) in the appeal relates to addition confirmed by Tribunal of Rs. 15,49,420/-. 8. The relevant facts are that the appellant filed return showing only the salary income. Questionnaire was issued during the assessment proceedings asking for details of the bank accounts. The assessee furnished his bank account statement with Axis Bank in respect of account No. 197010100090146. Later on, he furnished the bank statement of his account No. 197010100090401 with Axis Bank, stating that it was hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled to substantiate that there was some actual receipt of money. Copy of the Profit & Loss Account of M/s Parkash Rice & General Mills was not produced. There was no proof with the appellant to show that there was cash in hand of Rs. 8,86,639/- as on 31.03.2010. The appeal was dismissed. 10. Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that though the authorities below have given the benefit of Rs. 3 lakh of re-deposit of cash but have not considered that during the previous years, the appellant would have accumulated funds, for which a further benefit of Rs. 5 lakh was given. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no specific evidence to support the opening balance of Rs. 8,86,639/- as on 01.04.2010. The evidence was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l grand-father for operating the bank account. In his statement, the appellant stated that the source of income of his grand-father was only rental income of Rs. 3,630/- per month. But during the period from 06.05.2010 to 05.03.2011, cash deposits worth Rs. 14,40,000/- were made in the account. It was further noted that even after the death of his grand- father, the appellant was continuously operating the account. 14. In appeal before the CIT (A), the appellant adduced additional evidence in the shape of bank statement and balance sheet of M/s Om Parkash Sunder Lal B.K.O, in which Shri Om Parkash, maternal grand- father of the appellant, was stated to be a partner. The said additional evidence was considered. The evidence produced in no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at his name was added in the account only for helping his old maternal grand-father for operating the account is belied by the fact that the ration card produced showed that Shri Om Parkash was staying with his two sons who could have helped him for operating the account. Shri Om Parkash had his own PAN number, yet PAN number of the appellant was mentioned in the bank account. The explanation furnished by the appellant that Shri Om Parkash was partner in M/s Om Parkash Sunder Lal B.K.O was of no help, as no income tax returns of the B.K.O were placed on record. There was no evidence to show that the said capital was ever received by Shri Om Parkash. Reliance was placed on a self serving capital account prepared but the appellant failed to e....