2023 (3) TMI 1159 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - order u/s 148A - Unexplained deposit in bank account - HELD THAT - Assessee failed to furnish the explanation for the credits reflected in his Bank account as well as failed to produce the source for deposits made - Assessee has failed to furnish the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The absence of explanation from the Assessee in respect of the credits reflected in his Bank account leads to believe that there is an escapement of assessment. Since the first respondent in the impugned order has given sound and justifiable reasons for rejecting the petitioner s contentions as raised in this writ petition, the question of interfering with the impugned order by this Court will not arise. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on lack of awareness of bank account, failure to disclose account details, and absence of explanation for credited amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 19.04.2022 under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing lack of awareness of an Axis Bank branch in Nambiyur Town during the relevant period. The petitioner denied knowledge of a bank account opened in his name at Axis Bank, Nambiyur Town, with a credit of Rs.1,09,25,580. Despite requesting account details from the respondents and explaining that the account was opened at the request of a friend but remained inactive, the petitioner faced allegations of non-cooperation.

The first respondent, in the impugned order, highlighted that the petitioner's account at Axis Bank had substantial deposits without any complaint or F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner regarding the discrepancy. The onus was placed on the petitioner to prove the legitimacy of the transactions. The petitioner was provided with details of the bank account and credits but failed to explain the source of the deposits, leading to suspicions of an assessment evasion due to the absence of an income return for the relevant year.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court found the reasons provided by the first respondent in the impugned order to be justifiable and sound. As the petitioner failed to adequately address the concerns raised regarding the credited amount and the lack of income return for the assessment year, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in challenging the impugned order. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.