P. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law were raised in the appeal memorandum:

(2.) The assessee offered Rs. 3 lakhs as consultation charges received. On being asked to explain, the appellant, vide letter dated October 24, 2009, explained that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in account No. 108455-and-in account No. 108297 are not his income and he is not liable to tax. He had further explained that account No. 108455 belonged to his daughter, Pramila, who was employed in Corporation Bank and she was abroad with her husband. Her transactions were quite independent it was contended. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the later version. Instead the Assessing Officer pointed out that appellant admitted during the course of search that cash deposits were made by him in all the three accounts out of the receipts from consultation. None of these deposits was maturity amount of any fixed deposits and, accordingly, the entire deposit amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs was treated as professional income.

(3.) Still further, in the sworn statement taken at the time of search, the assessee stated that the assessee had received Rs. 20 lakhs by cheque by surrender of the tenancy right of the flat at Mumbai.