9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 479 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained unaccounted deposit of USD 7 Million in the account of the appellant maintained with Standard Chartered Bank Dubai - addition on the basis of the information provided by the Enforcement Directorate - HELD THAT - As far as the evidences provided by the Enforcement Directorate are concerned the authenticity and correctness of the same cannot be doubted as the source of such information is a Department of Govt. of India. In any case the appellant had failed to provide any material evidence which even prima-facie indicate that the information provided by the Enforcement Directorate is not correct. There is material evidence on record to show that Shri Kashinath Tapuriah husband of the appellant was working in close association and cooperation with Shri Hassan Ali Khan and others. This is evident from a large number of seized documents which were found independently at two places namely the residence of the appellant at Kolkatta and the residence of Shri Hassan Ali Khan at Pune. At this juncture it is also brought on record that the AO had taxed the right person i.e. the Appellant on the basis of the Transfer Instruction provided by the Enforcement Directorate . We find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer correctly. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?32,60,60,000 based on alleged credit of USD 7 million in a foreign bank account. 2. Alleged reliance on incomplete investigation by the Assessing Officer. 3. Direction to produce all findings of the investigation by the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate. 4. Denial of ownership of the foreign bank account by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition of ?32,60,60,000 The appellant contested the confirmation of an addition of ?32,60,60,000 based on an alleged credit of USD 7 million in a foreign bank account. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT(A)] upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the information received from the Enforcement Directorate. The Ld.CIT(A) elaborated that the transaction dated March 12, 2001, clearly fell under the Assessment Year (AY) 2001-02. The document from the Enforcement Directorate was considered a "speaking document," containing all necessary components for levying taxation, such as the transaction details, the person liable, the assessment year, and the taxable income. Issue 2: Alleged Reliance on Incomplete Investigation The appellant argued that the AO relied on incomplete investigations and failed to bring all evidence on record. However, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the appellant was provided with incriminating documents forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate before the original assessment order was passed. The appellant's denials were unsubstantiated, and the AO's addition was upheld as there was no violation of natural justice principles. Issue 3: Direction to Produce All Findings of Investigation The appellant requested that the department be directed to produce all findings from the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate. The Ld.CIT(A) found that the appellant was duly confronted with adverse material and had ample opportunity to respond. The appellant's failure to produce any material evidence to rebut the transactions reflected in the "Transfer Instruction" led to the upholding of the AO's addition. Issue 4: Denial of Ownership of the Foreign Bank Account The appellant initially denied owning the foreign bank account but later admitted ownership during reassessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) highlighted a letter dated March 13, 2011, where the appellant and her husband admitted that the bank account in question belonged to the appellant. The appellant's claim that the account was not operative was unsupported by documentary evidence. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the information from the Enforcement Directorate was reliable and authentic, and the appellant failed to provide contrary material evidence. Conclusion The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Authority, as there was no material to controvert the findings. The decision in ITA.No. 542/Mum/2019 applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (ITA.No. 543, 544 & 545/Mum/2019). The appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on March 9, 2022.
|
