2015 (8) TMI 1441 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - unexplained deposits of the assessee u/s 69 - Held that - Assessee has not filed any evidence to the fact that the assessee was carrying on retail business in steel. When asked by the Bench, he expressed his inability to do so. In absence of the same, source of deposits in the bank account could not be established by the assessee to be out of carrying on retail business in steel by bringing any material on record, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was fully justified in treating the entire deposits made in cash as unexplained deposits of the assessee under sec. 69 It is not the case of the Authorized Representative of the assessee that while making the deposits in the bank, the assessee had utilized the withdrawals made on earlier occasions. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Sole issue: Whether Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking sec. 263 of the Act against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sec. 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2010-11.

Detailed Analysis:

*Issue 1: Invocation of sec. 263 of the Act*
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked sec. 263 against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sec. 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer accepted the income returned by the assessee in his revised return based on the peak credit claimed. However, the Principal Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer did not verify the claim of the assessee regarding carrying on a retail business in steel. The Principal Commissioner emphasized that the methodology of peak credit requires proof of turnover and the existence of business operations. The lack of evidence regarding the business of iron and steel, absence of records, and non-disclosure to the sales tax department led the Principal Commissioner to conclude that the deposits were unexplained investments. The Principal Commissioner enhanced the income by treating the entire deposits as unexplained investments under sec. 69 of the Act.

*Issue 2: Judicial Review and Legal Precedents*
The Authorized Representative of the assessee relied on legal precedents, citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in specific cases. The representative argued that if the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view during assessment, it should not be considered erroneous merely because the CIT disagrees. However, the Departmental Representative supported the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

*Issue 3: Lack of Evidence and Justification of the Decision*
During the appeal, the Authorized Representative of the assessee failed to provide any evidence supporting the claim of carrying on a retail business in steel. The absence of proof regarding the source of deposits led the tribunal to uphold the decision of the Principal Commissioner. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order, as the assessee could not establish the source of the cash deposits in the bank account.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to treat the deposits as unexplained investments. The lack of evidence regarding the business operations and the source of deposits contributed to the confirmation of the decision.