SRI MOHAN M MEHARWADE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IT IHF HIGH CGURT 31 KARNnF’tkt CIRCUiT BFNCH Al DHARWAD ‘ .2 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICL K SREEDHAR RAO THL HON’BLF MR.JUSTIC’F A.S.BOPANNA Ii ‘I. I ) ( ‘4 ‘ P1 ‘I j .‘. . I j \i c.1 ..• 1 . . . . I • tI,. 4: - 1(1 . .

:2: JUDGMJr I he ordei of the Assessing Authority was set aside in the Tribunal and 1h matter was remanded for fresh assessment. The Assessing Authority after remand has found deemed income for the following items: Income as ntumcci Rs. 1,11,890 I. LTnexplalncd cash credits brought to Rs. 10.00.000 tax u/s 68 of the Act as discussed above 2. Unexplained marriage expenditure Rs. 2.35.000 treated as income u Is 69C of the Act as discussed above 3 Income from lv Network Rs 65 000 4. hiconie fiom Other Sources - R.’. 2.00.000 UndLsc’Io%ed interest hicome as discussed abm e TOTAL It’. 16.11.890 5 rnpianec credit ‘n he SB 4 c as us 1.0000 licisedntt nIt 11 s 4 pas.cd 210 ‘003 OIALNCOMF 4 li.8l 30 2. Iht CT r iAJ cnnth mcd tim ‘rh i Thc. ml €4 am” ‘trni W 2 3 1 md r...sp’r I L C I Ic r’rt. t,,Iit.’ i ‘11 Lfl(Ii 4 Iii- fl%Sf Si( shct

:3: have Illed an appeal on the order of the CIT(A) on the earlier occasion ‘Th asessee in fact had ified an appeal against the said order ‘ide Annexure-F. The rzihiuml had ‘set aside the order and rc inanded 11w matter to the Assessing Officer for re assessment In respect of item No.5. the Tribunal was not macic aware of the order v-ide Annexure F Thus, the observation of the Tribunal Is that the said item cannot be considered for adjudication. In the present appeal, it does not appear to be a correct and proper observation, because the said appeal wn alloiicd and tht matter as remanded 3. In respec t of item 1o. I. h assessec had ,hLi1 R 1000 000, a’ borrm%ed from nine persone The aid rrtditnrs an’ family n ember’ of t ‘it t%SP.Stt a r Iso t nn ‘,eses Eli’ ‘S4(’nIfl 4 ., ‘tutnorin ha% tn.inrl that thc crrciitoia iho lix lamily ‘Ii 1 .J r1 t the -. in not n i c’ mi ci. cnw., • ‘ th. i ni ti t’ie

:4. documents/evidences haw been produced by the c reditors to show that they ha e enough sources to lend money to the assessee lherefcnt. tht. l’rlbunal has held the amount of Rs. 10.00.000/ as dtemed mc ome for tax tinder SectIon 68 of the Tncome rax Act. 4 On thorough consideration of the matenal, it Is seen that the proper enquhy is not conducted by the Assessing Officer to find out the genuineness of the transaction The creditors are said to be income tax ssessees having Pan Card. flu assessee in quntion has piodtwed copies of the mcomc tax returns of the rime creditors In that context. it i’ necessary br the Assessing Officer to (mci out the LLenuineness of the transuc tion’. from the creditor’. If at all the issess ‘c hnrrcnvtl the nvnt ‘. Iron ailnhlk r arid if h dcct aw’ t!se 4.fllfle t—rf 1 ,’aionm ii. hi’ rct’triic. n vniiId Iot he— Pt ceai icr tip’ .isse’—t t .e p’sgi.. rjr “‘tct ‘‘I 1 i, :, 1’ SC “ui’ .\t.’l,Oii ‘j lit S t I I