TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness, had not filed his income tax returns for the earlier four to five years contending that his income was not taxable. A notice under Section 148 dated 18th February, 2000 was served on the assessee on 7th March, 2000, whereupon on 11th February, 2002 assessee filed a return of income declaring income of Rs.21,175/-. Assessee's case was referred to the Valuation Cell, whereupon the Valuation Cell reported that the house was constructed in the year 1991 at a cost of Rs. 17.00 lacs. 2. Assessee did not dispute the valuation. He contended that the cost of construction was financed by the compensation amount of Rs.17,85,395/- received by his mother in a land acquisition case. A sum of Rs. 17, 85,395.70 received by a cheque dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o them were returned un-served. Partners of those Firms appeared before the Assessing Tax Officer at the instance of the assessee, but individuals did not. Partners of those Firms stated that loans were given to the assessee by the Firms represented by them and those were paid by the assessee through the subject cheques. They stated that the Firms were income tax assesses at the relevant time. They also stated that the loans did not bear any interest. They also stated that the Firms represented by them have closed their business in view of the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. 4. The amounts paid to the Firms and the amounts paid to those individuals from the said account were not accepted as amounts spent for construction of the ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an earlier payment, nor any purchase said to have been made was established. In the circumstances, non-acceptance of payments made to the said Firms as repayment of loans and nonacceptance of payments made to those individuals on account of purchase of materials cannot be said to be an act so capricious and unjust that the same can be called in question as a substantial question of law. Certain payments made to certain other individuals were accepted as payments made for construction purpose, but without there being anything to suggest that the payments so made were utilized for construction. In the circumstances non-acceptance of payments made to the concerned individuals as payments made on account of purchase of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred for construction of the house in question. The explanation as was put forward by the appellant was repayment of loans, which were used for the construction, and payments on account of purchase of materials. Receipt of loans, utilization thereof for construction and purchase of materials were, therefore, the essential ingredients to satisfy that the payments in question were made for repayment of loans and for discharging the debts incurred on account of purchase of materials. Since there was nothing to suggest receipt of loans and utilization thereof for construction, except assertions, and at the same time there being nothing to suggest procurement of materials from those individuals, who were paid the amounts in question, nonacc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee as well as of the revenue. In that case, on facts, it was found that having regard to the age of the assessee and the circumstances in which she was placed., she cannot be credited to make income of her own and in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Tribunal in refusing to permit addition of the value of the subject investments to the income of the assessee. In the instant case, there is no material on record which would suggest that the appellant could not be credited with having made any income of his own having regard to his age and the circumstances in which he was placed. In the event, it is construed that all un-explained source of expenditure should not be deemed to be the income of the asses....