MD. GHAZI SALAHUDDIN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

At the time of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has not pressed Grounds No. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee in this appeal. The same accordingly are dismissed as not pressed.

Apropos the issue raised in Ground No. 1, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual, who is carrying on the business as re-seller of tyres. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.09.2009 disclosing total income of Rs.5,48,910/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer from the balance-sheet that the assessee has received advances of Rs.7,25,000/- during the year under consideration. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to furnish the complete address of the parties from whom the said advances were received. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the said advances were received from the running customers against sale of tyres and since the said customers comprising mainly drivers did not have any permanent address, he could not provide the same. Keeping in view this submission made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that there was failure on the part of the assssee to discharge the primary onus of explaining the relevant advances in terms of section 68 and accordingly the advances received by the assessee aggregating to Rs.7,25,000/- were added by him to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68.

On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appals) confirmed the said addition as the assessee again failed to discharge the onus of explaining the nature and ./2016 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 4 source of advances found credited in his books of account even during the course of appellate proceedings.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has furnished at page no. 5 of his paper book the names and addresses of 32 parties, from whom the impugned advances aggregating to Rs.7,25,000/- are claimed to be received in cash. He has contended that these details were not available with the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the same having been obtained now, the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification. I am unable to accept this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R., no reason whatsoever has been given by the ld. counsel for the assessee for not furnishing these details either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals). On the other hand, a specific stand was taken by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the advances having been received from the running customers mainly drivers, he was not in a position to provide their addresses. The assessee thus now has changed his stand, which cannot be accepted. Even the addresses of the parties given at page no. 5 of the paper book appear to be incomplete. As rightly held by the authorities below, the primary onus to establish the identity and capacity of the concerned creditors as well as the genuineness of the relevant transactions is on the assessee and the details provided by the assessee at page no. 5 of the paper book for the first time at this stage are not even sufficient to discharge the same. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to give one more opportunity to the assessee to establish his case and rejecting the request made by the ld. counsel for the assessee in this regard, I uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer ./2016 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 4 of 4 under section 68. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.