TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs..34,86,141/- towards unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] by treating them as income from other sources. 2. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 15.07.2009 admitting a total income of Rs..4,98,980/-. This case was selected for scrutiny for Cash deposits of Rs..1,04,500/- and Credit Card payments of Rs..37,77,552/-. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2011 disallowing the credit card payment for Rs..34,86,141/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. The assessee went on appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Further, against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is a second round of litigation. Vide order dated 27.11.2013 in I.T.A. No. 1327/Mds/2013 & C.O. No. 138/Mds/2013, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the explanation submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that assessee's friend Shri Neelamegan has used the credit cards and made payments and any other details as may be furnished. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer served notice on the assessee and called for details. The Assessing Officer also summoned Shri Neelamegan under section 131 of the Act. In his sworn statement, Shri Neelamegan insisted that no credit cards can be used by a third party as signature o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addresses of income tax office where they were filing their return of income. iv. The copy of the ledger account of the appellant reflecting in their books of accounts for the relevant period under consideration. v. The bank account statements of these four entities from which the funds were transferred to the account of the assessee. The address of the bank branches was also called for. Before the ld. CIT(A), on 01.02.2017, the ld. AR furnished the addresses of these four parties. However, he failed to furnish the confirmation from these parties. Since the assessee could not furnish any other details before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 6.2 It is the contention of the assessee that Shri Neelamegan has used h....