KESAVAN DAMODARAN GOPALA KRISHNAN,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM

Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing assessee’s above extracted first and foremost substantive ground. Rejected accordingly.

Next comes the assessee’s endeavour to treat the impugned unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.4,28,69,250/- as his business income and therefore, the only inference that could be drawn is that the impugned sum represents his business as well as than unexplained cash credits. We are of the considered view that this is essentially is a mixed question of law and facts wherein it is the assessee’s bounden duty to plead and prove all the relevant facts which he has failed to discharge. We accordingly not impressed by the assessee’s sole substantive ground in absence of any appropriate reply coming from his side. No other argument has been raised so as to rebut the learned

Lastly comes rent advance addition of Rs.71,68,480/- wherein the assessee claims to have paid to his landlord in the preceding assessment year and recorded in the books in the impugned assessment year. The Revenue has drawn strong support from the fact that the assessee has not been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts vis-à-vis advances made in the said earlier assessment year followed by return thereof in the relevant previous year. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that the assessee is now ready and willing to file all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer if one more effective innings has been given. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant last substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue by giving effective opportunities to the assessee, subject to the rider that it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to plead and prove his case before him with all relevant documents. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.