9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 872 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessee deposited huge cash into the bank account - assessee s bank account was used for depositing substantial cash amounts purportedly belonging to another individual - HELD THAT - Cash was deposited in the assessee s bank account in ICICI bank account which belonged to Shri Devesh Upadhyaya who opened the bank account in assessee s name by using his PAN and operated the same for providing accommodation entries. Mr. Devesh Upadhyaya deposited cash in the said bank account and the same was given to various parties as accommodation entries. We have also examined the statement recoded u/s 131 of the Act by the ld. AO of the said person and while answering to question no.11 to 18 Shri Devesh Upadhyaya admitted that the cash deposited in the assessee s bank account belonged to him and he used the bank account for giving accommodation entries. We even note that in his (Shri Devesh Upadhyaya) assessment framed u/s 143(3) his income was assessed by the ld. AO at the rate of 0.10% of the total cash deposits in the order dated 16.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Thus we are of the view that the addition is partly confirmed by CIT (A) in the hands of the assessee is uncalled for and unwarranted and cannot be sustained as this income has been assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this case was whether the addition of 14,06,250/- to the income of the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], following the initial addition of 1.50 crore by the Assessing Officer (AO), was justified. This issue arose from the allegation that the assessee's bank account was used for depositing substantial cash amounts, purportedly belonging to another individual, Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, and used to provide accommodation entries. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework primarily involved sections 147, 148, 131, 133(6), and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Section 147 pertains to the reopening of assessments if income has escaped assessment. Section 148 involves the issuance of notice for reassessment. Section 131 provides the authorities with powers akin to a civil court for discovery and inspection, while section 133(6) allows for requisitioning information. Section 143(3) pertains to the assessment of income. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal examined whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which were admitted by Shri Devesh Upadhyaya to belong to him, should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had reduced the addition from 1.50 crore to 14,06,250/- based on the percentage of accommodation entries provided. However, the Tribunal found that since the income had already been assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not warranted. Key Evidence and Findings The key evidence included the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, where Shri Devesh Upadhyaya admitted that the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were his and were used for providing accommodation entries. Additionally, the assessment order of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya under section 143(3) confirmed the assessment of income at 0.10% of the total cash deposits. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the law by considering the admission of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya regarding the ownership of the cash deposits. Given that the income from these deposits had already been assessed in his hands, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for sustaining the addition in the hands of the assessee. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal considered the argument of the Revenue that the addition should be sustained due to the deposits in the assessee's account. However, it found the assessee's argument more compelling, supported by the admission of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya and the fact that the income had already been assessed in his hands. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee was unjustified and directed the AO to delete this addition. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the addition is partly confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) in the hands of the assessee to the tune of 1,06,250, is uncalled for and unwarranted and cannot be sustained as this income has been assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya." Core Principles Established The Tribunal established the principle that income should not be doubly assessed in the hands of different individuals when there is clear evidence of ownership and prior assessment. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
