AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Shri R.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the department.
The Respondent - Assessee was found to have made investment of Rs. 43,63,821/- which was not disclosed in the account. The AO and CIT (A) did not accept the explanation, that the investment of the amount in the property was made from the source of funds provided by M/s City Developers Private Limited, Kolkata. The Assessee could not produce any valid documents in proof of the investment, and purchase of the land. He produced some newspaper reports. The CIT (A) observed that the copy of the bank account shows that the money was given by M/s City Developers Private Limited, Kolkata. In the remand proceedings, the Bank pointed out that since the details required were of the period beyond 12 years, the same could not be provided. The ITAT found that onus of proof of the source of money was disclosed, which has been invested, unless some facts were found on record, which could not establish the prima facie claim of the Assessee.
Shri R.K. Upadhyay refers to Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala, In this judgment the Supreme Court held that where the explanation offered by the Assessee about the nature and source of the sum found credited in the books is not satisfactory, and there is prima facie evidence against the Assessee of the receipt of the money, the burden is on the Assessee to rebut the same and if he fails to rebut it, it can be held against the Assessee that it was a receipt of the income nature. The burden is on the Assessee to take the plea, that even if the explanation is not acceptable, the material and attending circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature.
The Supreme Court observed that the doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner, in which accounts were found credited in the books of accounts have to be duly taken into consideration. The transactions though apparent were not held real ones may be the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction but that by itself is of No. consequence.
The appeal is admitted on the following question of law:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified in law in holding the decision of ld. CIT (A) in deleting the undisclosed income of Rs. 43,63,821/- being unexplained investment in purchase of land holding that the Assessee discharged the onus to prove the source of investment without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the A.O.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble ITAT was justified in law in holding the decision of ld. CIT (A) in deleting the undisclosed income of Rs. 43,63,821/- being unexplained investment in purchase of land holding that the Assessee discharged the onus to prove the source of investment without appreciating that the Assessee had failed to produce principal officer of M/s City Developers Ltd. from whom the money was alleged to be taken. Merely filing confirmation letter or that the amount was received through account payee cheques does not mean that the Assessee has discharged his onus of proving the genuineness of transaction.
Issue notice to the Assessee. Steps within three days.