AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reference. In accordance with the provision of sec. 153A of the Act a notice was issued on 07.01.2011. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income till 14.02.2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee has filed return of income on 30.07.2011. Assessment Year wise return of income as per original returns u/s. 139(1) and as per return of income u/s. 153A of the act is reproduced as under:- A.Y. Date of filing return u/s. 139(1) Total Income Agriculture Income Date of filing return u/s. 153A Total Income Agriculture Income 2005-06 05.12.2005 4,61,590/- Nil 14.02.2012 5,95,330/ - 80,000/- 2006-07 20.10.2006 3,54,540/- Nil 14.02.2012 4,33,650/- 80,000/- 2007-08 31.10.2007 3,79,510/- Nil 14.02.2012 4,28,800/- 80,000/- 2008-09 5,44,960/- Nil 14.02.2012 7,89,050/- 80,000/- 2009-10 30.07.2009 5,25,520/- 80,000/- 14.02.2012 7,89,930/- 80,000/- 2010-11 26.08.2010 7,37,650/- Nil 14.02.2012 9,46,930/- 80,000/- 2011-12 30.07.2011 9,46,610/- 1,00,000/- - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posited in the various bank accounts. The assessee was not having documentary evidences to explain the sources of the cash found. The assessee has submitted the cash flow statement which was considered as an afterthought and without supporting with relevant evidences. The detailed reasons for not accepting the same are elaborated in detail at Para 3.5 on pages 15 to 18 of the assessment order. The brief reason for not accepting the cash flow statement can be summarised as under:- "(a) No supporting evidence for deposits in Bank Accounts (b) Failure to furnish cash flow statement evidencing date-wise receipt of sources (c) Absence of evidence for the sale proceeds received by the appellant on sale of car (d) Failure to furnish gift deeds in relation to the gifts receipts. (e) Non-substantiation of agricultural income. (f) Failure to produce Mr. Rohit Gupta and CA Rajeev Agrawal for oral evidence, from whose company the appellant had received imprest cash and business receipts in cash." 5. The assessee has filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the cash-flow statement was not based on conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 the assessee has not shown any agricultural income in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, however, in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 80,000/- per year in all the assessment years and failed to substantiate the claim of earning agricultural income with supporting evidences sale bill etc, consequently, the AO has disallowed the claim of agricultural income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of ownership of land has allowed the claim of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 80,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 80,000/- A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 stating that ownership of land cannot negate the effect of having natural agricultural income in spite of not producing any supporting bill and voucher of sale of agricultural production. In the light of the above fact we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has granted sufficient relief to the assessee in spite of the facts that assessee was not having supporting bill/voucher for sale of agricultural produce and the assessee has not claimed any agricultural income in the original return of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate proceeding the Ld. CIT(A) as per Para 10.2 has considered the claim of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per cash statement as on 01.04.2004. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that assessee has failed to substantiate her claim of having cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- with relevant supporting evidences. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee was having reasonably cash to the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as on 01.04.2004. We have heard the rival contention on this issue. During the course of appellate proceeding the assessee has contended that cash was generated from sale of jewellery but the assessee could not establish that any capital gain from the sale of jewellery was disclosed for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee could not substantiate the same by furnishing copy of return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has also verified from the copy of intimation u/s. 143(1) that there was not detail of any computation of capital gain on account of sale of jewellery. In view of the aforesaid material facts the Ld. CIT(A) has considered that it was reasonable to hold an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- available in the hand of the assessee as on 01.04.2004. In the light of the above facts and circumstances we consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year of acquisition to be A.Y. 2001-02 as against the claim of A.Y. 1981-82. The assessee has claimed that during the previous year relevant A.Y. 2009-10 the assessee has held gold jewellery of Rs. 8,12,440/- and disclosed the capital gain after claiming the indexation with effect from 01.04.1981. The AO has asked the assessee to substantiate the date of purchased of the gold jewellery with supporting document to establish that the same was acquired before 01.04.1981. In this regard, the assessee has submitted a copy of report of the approve valuer dated 27.02.2003. However, the assessee has failed to produce the relevant supporting purchased bill of the jewellery and could not file any other evidence to corroborate that the sale jewellery was purchased on or before 01.04.1981. Under the circumstances the AO has examined the valuer who has confirmed that the valuation of the sold jewellery was only made on 27.02.2003. In view of the above facts and for want of relevant supporting evidences the AO has taken the indexation of the sold jewellery with effect from 27.02.2003. 18. During the course of appellate proceeding before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has failed to furnish any ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar on facts and issue to the Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been adjudicated as above in this order and applying the same findings, this ground of appeal stand dismissed. Second and Fifth Ground of Appeal:- 22. Second ground of appeal of the assessee is pertained to addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- and addition of Rs. 10,44,946/- as unexplained cash for not proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. 23. During the course of assessment the assessee has claimed that she has received cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Kavita Gupta who was a relative of the assessee. The AO has added the amount to the income of the assessee on the ground that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and also the availability of the aforesaid cash was not established. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the claim of the assessee that aforesaid amount was withdrawn in cash from bank account of Kavita Gupta. Considering the submission of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify from the bank statement of the Kavita Gupta and if the withdrawal was made from the bank account as per the bank statement then ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that assessee was found possessing unaccounted cash in physical form as well as deposited in the books and bank accounts. It was for the assessee to explain source of the cash as well as genuineness of the transaction. It was also for the assessee to prove creditworthiness of the persons who have given her the cash. The assessee has alleged that she had received cash as imprest deposit from M/s. Technosys Technology. This stand of the assessee has elaborately examined by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) doubted the genuineness of the transaction. At the cost of repetition we would like to reiterate some part of the CIT(A)'s finding:- "5.12.3. I have perused the relevant documents, and have heard the Ld. AR at length. Additionally I had called for the audited accounts of the Company concerned to verify the general availability of cash with the Company. Perusal of the day-to-day cash book and papers filed with submissions dated 8/8/15, however, ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly. If in fact the gross-receipt, unspent, remained with the appellant, why was the same not shown as received and retained upto the date of search and spent subsequent to search to the AO? Does TDS paid into Government Account after the search explain the receipt and retention till the date of search? Why while TDS certificate and company's confirmation show small payments below Rs. 20000/-, the appellant's day-to-day cashbook shows all 5 receipts of more amounts, highest being Rs. 3.73 lacs? Why oral evidences of Shri Rohit Gupta and Shri Rajesh Aggrawal as called for by the AO still not produced? 5.12.4 There is no explanation also for mismatch between strong plea before the AO and before me. In view of these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the genuineness of receipt of imprest cash of Rs, 4.5 lacs during FY 09-10 and further implied receipts of Rs. 7,71,060/- as business receipts allegedly from M/s Technosys was rightly doubted and disbelieved by the Ld. AO in light of the nature of evidences filed before him, the quantum of transactions as also the ambivalence in the story put up by the appellant and on the basis of human probabilities. It is also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observe that Shri Rajiv Agarwal and Rohit Gupta are the witness of the assessee. It was for the assessee to produce them before the AO. And the Ld. CIT(A) has observed rightlythat assessee could collect cash from different closely related enterprises but could not persuade the relevant person who were her witnesses to appear before the AO for examination is highly improbable rather it suggests that assessee does not went to produce them are trying to mislead the AO by asking him to use his powers u/s. 131(1). The first onus is upon the assessee to fulfil the conditions provided u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act up to a reliable degree, only thereafter, the AO would rebut but here the assessee herself has failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of alleged creditors. In this regard the relevant part of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "Noteworthy in this factual background is also the further fact that the appellant has not attempted to improve her case before me also by explaining and evidencing in detail the circumstances under which the fact and quantum of imprest cash/ "business receipts" was considered neces....