TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome for the assessment year 2011-12 disclosing an income of Rs.5,77,610/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny under the CASS scheme and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- made in the assessee's bank account with ICICI bank, Kollam on 20.1.2011. The assessee submitted that the sum represented the sale receipts of land belonging to his wife, Smt. Saly Joseph, who had transferred 76.73 ares of land to one Sri Sajiv Mathai for a total consideration of Rs.3,35,700/-. The assessee produced the sale deed dated 20.1.2011. The case of the assessee is that though the document value is only Rs.3,35,700/-, the actual consideration was for R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did not the Appellate Tribunal err in law in sustaining the addition of income of Rs.26,64,300/- from other source for the Assessment year 2011-12? (ii) Did not the statutory Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal err in law in failing to cross verify with the purchaser of the immovable property the facts stated in the sworn statement and in the affidavit of the appellant before the first Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal as regards the withdrawal of amount from the NRE Bank account by the purchaser and payment thereof, to the appellant prior to registration of sale deed with respect to the immovable property considered in the assessment proceedings for a sum of Rs.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount given by shri.Sajeev Mathai. 6. The counsel relied on the decision of the High Court of Gauhati reported in Nemi Chand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2003) 185 CTR 0635], to substantiate that "once the assessee discloses the source from which he has received the loan, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged and the onus then shifts to the Assessing officer to show if he wants to treat the loan as the income of the assessee from undisclosed source, the transaction between the assessee and the creditor is/are not genuine or that the creditor has no creditworthiness and/or that the money, which has been received by the assessee in the form of loans, actually belonged to the assessee himself." 7. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant to note that the appellant has not examined his wife who was the vendor of the property and who received the sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- before the Assessing Officer to prove the source of income. Merely by producing the sale deed which shows the sale consideration of Rs.3,35,700/- and trying to connect it with the deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- in the account on the very same day of the same transaction will not discharge the onus from the shoulder of the assessee. Only if the assessee discloses the source of income (the entire amount) then only the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged and the onus then shifts to the Assessing Officer. In the case on hand, the amount deposited is Rs.30,00,000/- whereas ....