TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of which assessee filed affidavit relating deposit of Khem Chand Khatri HUF Rs.5,60,000/- but considered Rs.1,00,000/- in name of Khem Chand Khatri (Ind.) and remaining not considered and ld. CIT(A) sustained addition Rs.6,63,000/- is against the cannon of justice.'' 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require any adjudication. 3.1 Apropos Ground No.2, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''4.2. I have considered the assessment order, facts of the case and submissions of the appellant the AO noted that the assessee was engaged in transaction in MCX & NCDEX and BSC and declared speculation loss in of Rs. (-)51,77,385/- and assessee HUF declared his income in his ITR from business and profession of Rs. 1,52,160/- during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer received information from ITS during the financial years. regarding share transactions through BSC & MCX. The Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that tax arising on speculative business and notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 after recording reasons. In response to notice u/s 148 the assessee had declared revised return of income of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act which is against the principles of natural justice. The assessee had filed complete details and discharged his primary burden and the assessing officer has not made further enquiry and contention of the assessee cannot be ignored on the opinion of assessing officer. The ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. Further the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (W.P. No. 1732 dated 4-02-2020). He further submitted that the tax payer has declared higher income in return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act voluntarily and there is nothing to prove that the tax payer has concealed income malafidely and the AO has assessed the tax u/s 68 of the Act without considering the assessee's reply and contravening the facts. Thus the addition so sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is required to be deleted. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to explain the source of the cash deposited in his saving bank accounts during the year under consideration. In support, assessee submitted that cash received from the receipts of e-Banking services, House rent income, Agriculture Income (Rent) and receipts of unsecured loans from various parties, because the assessee suffered heavy loss from speculation, hence to pay the loss amount to broker the assessee had taken cash loans from different persons and same was deposited into the his savings bank account. In the statement, assessee explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 32,92,300/- the assessee explained that it was receipts from e-banking direct taxes, e-banking NSDL PAN, e- banking Commercial Tax, House rent receipts, Agriculture income, Income from service account and unsecured loan from various parties, The explanation filed by appellant was found tenable but not fully satisfactory by Assessing Officer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee in his books of account had shown the following entries as unsecured loan:- S. No. Name Amount of Loan 1 Raj Kumar Khatri Member of HUF 53,000/- 2 Nayan Khatri Member of HUF 50,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r/donor or genuineness of the transaction could not be established. The appellant failed to produce any material or evidence to substantiate his claim. The settled position of law is, if the assessee fails to do so the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of assessee of that previous year as provided u/s 68 of the Act. The AO mentioned that the assessee failed to do so and the explanation given by the assessee in this regard was not found satisfactory. So the cases relied upon by the appellant do not help the cause of the appellant. The appellant failed to produce any material or evidence to substantiate his claim. 5.4 Similarly, the appellant has objected to the AO's action in disallowing unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- received in cash from Sh. Khem Chand Khatri (Individual). The Assessing Officer observed that Sh. Khem Chand Khatri died on 27.03.2017. In this regard the assessee had furnished all relevant details and documents. The AO mentioned that the assessee failed to do so and the explanation given by the assessee in this regard was not found satisfactory. The AO observed that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash of depos....