TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act and Rs. 20,290/- on account of suppression of interest on F.D. by observing as under :- Addition on account of Rs..11,00,000/- "The assessee has one OD/CC account with Union Bank of India, Raniganj and two loan accounts with Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. In account No.107 of Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. there is debit balance as on 31.03.2005 is Rs. 6,26,989/- and in another account with the Bank bearing No.3838 there is debit balance of Rs. 4,44,506/-. In the account of Union Bank of India bearing No.30020 there is debit balance of Rs. 5,71,804/-. On examination of copy of Bank statement of account No.107, it appears that there are cash deposits of Rs. 19,25,000/- on various dates of which there is one dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- deposited on 19.06.04 is treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the income of the assessee." Addition on account of suppression of interest of Rs. 20,290/- "It appears from the balance sheet as on 31.3.2005 submitted alongwith the return that the assessee has shown the following FDR :- 1) F.D. Rs. 88,133/- [Interest Rs. 4642/- @ 5.25%] 2) F.D. Rs. 72,291/- [Interest Rs. 3,795/- @ 5.25%] 3) F.D. Rs. 1,39,852/- [Interest Rs. 7342/- @ 5.25%] From the above, it appears that the interest credited is @ 5.25% p.a. whereas the information collected from Bank as well as copy of FDR collected from Bank shows rate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lized till 1st of February, 2004 because no prudent businessman would prefer to interest loss on this amount, therefore, this plea is not believable at all. Likewise, the Appellant has also failed to produce any copy of the Bank A/c in respect of Rs. 66,000/- cash withdrawal made by him between 01.04.2004 to 19.06.2004. Same is the case in respect of cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,86,500/- from the OD A/c of Tirupati Auto Engg. Works, Raniganj because the copy of the same was not enclosed before me as claimed in his submission. Likewise, the Appellant has also failed to prove that NSC Rs. 39,120/- (matured amount) was received by the Appellant on 16.05.2004 as no evidence in this regard has been furnished. Therefore, this plea i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat 12% interest p.a. was receivable on FDRs by the Appellant." Aggrieved by this now the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted as under :- "The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to consider following papers included in paper book as well those the petitioner wishes to file at the time of hearing which could not be filed before authorities below. 1. Papers at Serial No. 2 to 7 of Paper Book dt. 02-07-2009 as detailed below were given to one Mr. G. P. Kundu, F.C.A. alongwith written submission and cash flow at serial No.2 of Paper Book and also evidences of family members as to funds given to assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement as made by Shri S. N. Chaterjee is not correct and was given without consulting me. 1. For the facts and under the circumstances, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before Hon'ble Members to consider the papers /evidences contained in paper book and confirmations from three parties being filed herewith, as evidences in the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench." 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 5. After hearing the rival submissions and taking into consideration of the submissions filed by the assessee before the revenue authorities as well as before us and based on the documents filed by the assessee at pages 9 to 15, which are not filed before the....