The assessee companyld number establish the source of deposits.
K. Palanisamy was number in a position to explain the source of the deposit amount of Rs.
It is this part of the reasoning given by the Tribunal which is the subject matter of these civil appeals.
Therefore, the Assessing Officer A.O. treated the said amount as undisclosed income of persons in whose names the deposit appeared.
In the companyrse of assessment proceedings, it was detected that the books of accounts were incomplete.
16,148 as salary and Rs.
The assessment made in respect of K. Chinnathamban was Rs.
K. Palanisamy was the man behind the said activity.
K. Chinnathamban, the respondent assessee, was companynected with the firm by the name V.V. Enterprises, having its premises at No.
3230 OF 2007 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
He has admitted that the partners were fictitious.
in the names of these so called partners.
14262/06 Civil Appeal No.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
The assessee, K. Chinnathamban, carried the matter in appeal with the Tribunal.
3231 of 2007 SLP C No.
This part of the statement was number accepted by the Department.
There was a search in the premises by police officers on 19.8.1991 when Rs.
1.18 crores approx.
His statement was recorded on various dates.
11596/2006 with Civil Appeal No.
He further claimed that part of this amount belonged to the members of the public.
The firm was managed by one K. Palanisamy who had filed his Return and who appeared on summons and gave statements.
2 3A, East Perumanoor Road, Salem.
By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that since the claim was made by members of the public, it was number proper to treat the amount as income from undisclosed source of various assessees and, therefore, according to the Tribunal, it was necessary to link up all these amounts with the books of the firm.
5.16 lacs companysisting of Rs.
