2015 (12) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained deposits/investment in the bank - Held that - The authorities below on appreciation of material on record have concurrently recorded that ₹ 12,12,000/- was unexplained deposits/ investment in the bank of the assessee. Nothing could be shown that the approach of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse except only an effort was made to reappreciate the evidence so as to record a finding different from the one arrived at by the authorities below. The view of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is a plausible view based on material on record which warrant no interference by this Court. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refiling the appeal
2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3. Unexplained cash deposits in the bank

Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The judgment addresses the delay of 277 days in refiling the appeal, which is condoned by the court upon application. Another application regarding the deficiency in court fee is also allowed, and the delay in rectifying the deficiency is condoned.

Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, a boutique owner, sold a piece of land and deposited the sale proceeds in her bank account. The Assessing Officer questioned the source of cash deposits totaling &8377; 12,12,000. The appellant claimed the deposits were from the land sale and boutique sales, but the Assessing Officer considered it unexplained. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding the deposits were unexplained investments. The court found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits.

Unexplained Cash Deposits in the Bank:
The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal all agreed that the &8377; 12,12,000 cash deposits were unexplained. The appellant's explanation based on the land sale and boutique profits was deemed insufficient. The authorities noted discrepancies in the dates and amounts of cash deposits, leading to the conclusion that the appellant failed to justify the source of the funds. The court upheld the decision, stating that the authorities' findings were based on the evidence and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Additionally, a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal was addressed through a separate application for condonation, which was disposed of due to the dismissal of the appeal on merits.