9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Onus to prove - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the inaction of the AO for not collecting the details of the parties from whom the assessee has received cheque does not absolve the assessee from furnishing the details of the parties as discussed above. As such, the liability under section 68 of the Act is upon the assessee to justify the source of deposits in the manner described aforesaid. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus under the provisions of section 68 of the Act so far as the cheque deposits in his bank account are concern. Regarding the deposits of cash, we note that the assessee has furnished the list of parties from whom he has accepted the cash in the year under consideration amounting to ₹ 1,11,26,300.00. The assessee also filed the confirmation from the parties along with the copies of 7/12 extract depicting the agricultural land held by such parties. We hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus imposed under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. We also note that the Hon ble Apex court in the case of Tin Box Co. v/s CIT 2001 (2) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT has held that the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the AO if the assessee has filed additional evidences before the appellate authorities. We note that the Ld. CIT (A) has called for the remand report from the AO two times on the details furnished by the assessee before him. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT (A) evaluated the additional documents filed before him by the assessee and arrived at the conclusion that these documents were not sufficient enough to discharge the assessee from the onus imposed under section 68 - Thus it is not the case that the AO was not afforded the opportunities for his comments on the additional documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no violation of the principles laid down by the Hon ble Apex court in the case of Tin Box Company v/s CIT (Supra). We hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus cast upon him under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?1,63,22,223/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to present necessary details. 3. Non-appreciation of facts and submissions by lower authorities. 4. Levy of interest under Sections 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act. 5. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?1,63,22,223/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue is the confirmation of the addition of ?1,63,22,223/- by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, an individual with income from salary, deposited ?1,11,26,300/- in cash and ?51,95,923/- through cheques in his savings account. The AO treated these deposits as unexplained cash credits due to the absence of sufficient documentary evidence. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the cash deposits were received from various persons and provided confirmations and 7/12 extracts as evidence. However, the CIT(A) found the confirmations unsigned, lacking addresses, and without PAN details, thus upholding the AO's addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence for the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. Even though the transactions were through banking channels, the assessee did not furnish adequate documentation. The Tribunal upheld the addition, stating the assessee did not discharge the onus under Section 68. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee contended that the assessment order was passed without granting proper and sufficient opportunity to present necessary details, violating the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had called for remand reports from the AO twice, and the AO had opportunities to comment on the additional documents. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was given ample opportunities to present his case. 3. Non-appreciation of Facts and Submissions by Lower Authorities: The assessee claimed that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the facts and submissions provided. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A) had duly considered the additional evidences and remand reports before upholding the AO's order. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the cash and cheque deposits, thus dismissing this ground of appeal. 4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A/B/C. The Tribunal did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, implying that the levy of interest was a consequential outcome of the confirmed addition under Section 68. Therefore, this ground was dismissed along with the primary issue. 5. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, suggesting that the penalty proceedings would follow the outcome of the confirmed addition. As the primary addition was upheld, the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also sustained. 6. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act: Similar to the previous penalty issue, the assessee opposed the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The Tribunal did not separately analyze this ground, indicating that the penalty proceedings were consequential to the confirmed addition. Hence, this ground was dismissed in line with the primary issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of ?1,63,22,223/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash and cheque deposits. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles and dismissed all grounds of appeal, including the levy of interest and initiation of penalties.
|
